text:
# Coulomb Charging Effects in an Open Quantum Dot

## I Introduction

Charge quantization plays a central role in electron transport through lateral quantum dots weakly coupled to leads. It had been commonly believed, argued by justification of validity of Coulomb blockade theory and various experimental results, that Coulomb blockade oscillations of the conductance weaken and gradually vanish as the transparency of the barriers increases up to conductance quantum $`2e^2/h`$. However, the possibility of Coulomb charging in open quantum dots is now intensively investigated both theoretically and experimentally. In strong magnetic fields continuous Coulomb oscillations superimposed upon large-period oscillations have been detected with the conductance $`G`$ ranging up to $`G=3e^2/h`$. Only recently experimental evidence of single-electron charging of an open quantum dot has been obtained in zero magnetic field. In Ref.  the observation of pairs of resonant peaks in each transition region between the quantized conductance plateaus have been reported for the conductance of 1D channel changing up to $`G=7(2e^2/h)`$. In this case the potential of an impurity formed a small quantum dot in the channel, and the resonant peaks were ascribed to Coulomb charging of the dot. Detailed studies of this effect were, however, not possible because the transparency of the barriers could not be precisely controlled.

Recently novel type quantum dots with overlaying finger gates were fabricated. Surprisingly, continuous and periodic oscillations superimposed upon ballistic conductance steps were observed when the conductance through the dot changed within a wide range $`0<G<6e^2/h`$. A smooth transition of the oscillations from $`G>2e^2/h`$ to $`G<2e^2/h`$ with decreasing barrier transparency leads to the conclusion that the oscillations are due to single-electron charging of the quantum dot. However, none of the existent theories can explain the manifestation of single-electron oscillations over such a wide range of the conductance.

In this paper we analyze the results of conductance measurements of this novel type of quantum dot at zero magnetic field and discuss some new observations. Additionally, we report realistic modelling of the electrostatics and electron transport in the quantum dot. By calculating the capacitances of the quantum dot with respect to the gates we confirm the single-electron origin of the weak conductance oscillations. Results from the modelling of the electron transport show that mixing of the 1D-subbands is almost absent and that the large-scale resonant features in the background conductance are due to Fabry-Pérot interference. Thus in these devices single-electron charging and coherent electron transmission at $`G>2e^2/h`$ coexist.

In the present experiment the quantum dot was defined by two side gates, which deplete electrons within the channel, and three narrow overlaying finger gates. Outermost finger gates introduce the entrance and exit barriers to the dot, and the central finger gate stabilizes the depth of the potential inside the dot. The impurity scattering in the device, fabricated on an ultra-high-quality high electron mobility transistor (HEMT), is negligible. Our calculations demonstrate the unique versatility of this dot geometry with adjustable voltages on the side gates and three finger gates. We show that in some voltage regimes the electrostatic potential in the plane of the two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) is separable as $`U(x,y)=U_1(x)+U_2(y)`$ and thus the device exhibits simple one-dimensional behaviour.

In more standard quantum dots where the constrictions are defined by two pairs of split gates, Coulomb oscillations in zero magnetic field are only observable at $`G<2e^2/h`$. In order to determine the difference between this new, versatile device and the more standard quantum dot we compare the calculated electrostatics and transport in the two different types. Our results show that inter-1D subband scattering is suppressed in the new type of open quantum dot, owing to the special design, whereas in the more standard quantum dots the intersubband mixing is considerably enhanced once the transmission via the first subband is opened. We argue that quasi-1D transport through the quantum dot and high sensitivity of the barrier transparency in the constrictions to the variations of the Fermi level in the dot makes it possible to observe the effects of Coulomb charging at $`G>2e^2/h`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II the quantum dot device and conductance measurements are described. The behaviour of large scale features and frequent oscillations of the conductance with gate voltages and temperature are analyzed in details. Numerical results are reported in Sec. III. First we discuss the electrostatics of the device and determine the capacitance of the dot with respect to the contacts, and finger and split gates. Then the calculated two-dimensional potential profile was used for modelling multiple mode electron transmission through the quantum dot. In Sec. IV we give qualitative account for the observed single-electron conductance oscillations.

## II Experiment

### A Structure characterization
and main effect

The two-layered Schottky gate pattern shown in Fig. 1 was defined by electron beam lithography on the surface of a high-mobility GaAs/Al0.33Ga0.67As heterostructure T258, 157 nm above a 2DEG. There is a 30-nm-thick layer of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) which has been highly dosed by an electron beam, to act as a dielectric between the split gate (SG) and three gate fingers (F1, F2, and F3) so that all gates can be independently controlled.

After brief illumination by a red light emitting diode, the carrier concentration of the 2DEG was $`1.6\times 10^{15}`$ m-2 with a mobility of $`250`$ m2/V s. The corresponding transport mean free path is $`16.5\mu `$m, much longer than the effective 1D channel length. Experiments were performed in a dilution refrigerator at $`T=50`$ mK and the two-terminal conductance $`G=dI/dV`$ was measured using an ac excitation voltage of $`10`$ $`\mu `$V with standard phase-sensitive techniques. In all cases, a zero-split-gate-voltage series resistance ($`900\mathrm{\Omega }`$) is subtracted. Two samples, at five different cooldowns, show similar characteristics, and measurements taken from one of these are presented in this paper. Trace 1 in Fig. 2 shows the conductance measurements $`G(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ as a function of split-gate voltage $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ when all finger gate voltages $`V_{\mathrm{F1}}`$, $`V_{\mathrm{F2}}`$, and $`V_{\mathrm{F3}}`$ are zero.

Conductance plateaus at multiples of $`2e^2/h`$ are pronounced (with no resonant feature superimposed on top) as expected for a clean 1D channel. When the channel is defined at $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=1.132`$ V, six quantized conductance steps are observed when each one of the finger gates is swept while the others are grounded to the 2DEG as shown in traces 2–4 (Fig. 2). These experimental results demonstrate that a clean 1D channel is obtained in which impurity scattering is negligible. A lateral quantum dot was defined by applying voltages on SG, F1, and F3, while keeping F2 grounded to the 2DEG. Resonant features are observed only when large negative voltages are applied to both F1 and F3.

With some depletion voltage $`V_{\mathrm{F1}}V_{\mathrm{F3}}2`$ V at low-temperature, almost periodic and continuous oscillations of conductance $`G(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ over a wide range $`0<G<6e^2/h`$ are observed. Typical traces of the conductance $`G`$ and the distance between adjacent peaks (“period”) $`\delta V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ as functions of gate voltage $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ are shown in Fig. 3. The period and shape of the oscillations remain approximately the same within the wide range where $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ is varied, though the background conductance changes considerably. While the oscillations at $`G<2e^2/h`$ can be ascribed to Coulomb charging effects, the oscillations for $`G>2e^2/h`$ are unexpected.

The observed oscillations are essentially different from the single-electron effects in older type lateral quantum dots in which single electron tunneling peaks increase in height and decrease in width as the conductance decreases, and the period of the oscillations is well defined. The latter behaviour corresponds to the orthodox theory of Coulomb blockade. In contrast to the majority of the other papers where low-temperature single-electron effects have been studied, the trace in Fig. 3 has neither equally spaced narrow peaks nor regions of strongly suppressed conductance (Coulomb blockade) inbetween the peaks. Instead, all the oscillations in Fig. 3 are smoothed, have small amplitude $`0.2e^2/h`$, are approximately the same width, and the peak spacing fluctuates by several tens of percent.

Figure 4 shows that similar oscillations are observed when the central finger gate voltage $`V_{\mathrm{F2}}`$ is varied, with the side gate voltage fixed. At the top of Fig. 4 the conductance $`G`$ is shown along with its running average $`G_{\mathrm{RA}}`$ (the *background*). The oscillations without the background, $`GG_{\mathrm{RA}}`$, are shown at the bottom and their Fourier spectrum is given in the inset. Noticeably, in the region $`V_{\mathrm{F2}}<0.6`$ V, where $`G<e^2/h`$, the peaks should be strictly equidistant according to Coulomb blockade theory, additional beats are evident.

The observed oscillations overlay the wide maxima or steps of the conductance which appear periodically with the central finger gate voltage $`V_{\mathrm{F2}}`$ varied at fixed $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ (Fig. 4) and are most likely associated with electron wave interference on the system of two barriers in the constrictions. With changing the depth of the potential well in the quantum dot the resonances move through the Fermi level one by one. Previous studies have reported the observation of Coulomb oscillations superimposed on almost periodic conductance peaks at $`G<e^2/h`$ and were interpreted as Fabry-Pérot resonances due to coherent electron tunneling through the quantum dot. In our case the frequent small-amplitude oscillations penetrate to the region $`G>2e^2/h`$, where the transport is traditionally considered coherent and Coulomb charging effects are not usually observed.

Generally for $`G>2e^2/h`$, it is expected that the presence of a fully transmitted 1D channel might cause mode mixing between 1D channels in the quantum dot which should smear out charging effects. However, due to the special design and high quality of this device it is likely that there is little 1D mode mixing in the chosen range of gate voltages such that the level broadening for Coulomb oscillations is similar for both cases when $`G<2e^2/h`$ and $`G>2e^2/h`$.

### B Temperature evolution

Figure 5 shows how the features in the background (a) and the oscillations (b) of the conductance of the quantum dot develop with decreasing temperature from $`1`$ K to $`50`$ mK. Consider the behaviour of the background first \[see Fig. 5(a)\]. At 1 K there is no conductance quantization. Only the wide shoulder at $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}<0.65`$ V marks out the tunneling regime of the first subband $`G<e^2/h`$. Around $`T=0.2K`$ two plateaus at $`0.8(2e^2/h)`$ and $`1.8(2e^2/h)`$ appear. With lowering the temperature down to 50 mK resonant features develop: plateaus transform to peaks and shoulders emerge at $`0.7(2e^2/h)`$ and $`1.2(2e^2/h)`$. Thus, in contrast to the well-quantized ballistic conductance plateaus shown in Fig. 2, applying voltages to F1 and F3 results in conductance steps that are not as flat or well quantized.

In figure 5(b), at 1 K only a group of $`10`$ weak conductance oscillations within the range $`0.7\text{V}<V_{\mathrm{SG}}<0.65`$ V are discernible. These oscillations are located at the bottom slope of the first subband $`G(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ and relate to the tunneling regime $`G<e^2/h`$, so they can be ascribed, by analogy with Coulomb blockade peaks, to Coulomb charging effects. For $`T=0.5\text{}0.4`$ K a group of $`6`$ oscillations appear in the range $`0.65\text{V}<V_{\mathrm{SG}}<0.625`$ V which ascend up to $`G2e^2/h`$. Then at $`T=0.26\text{}0.2`$ K oscillations at higher conductance $`2e^2/h<G<4e^2/h`$ show up for $`0.625\text{V}<V_{\mathrm{SG}}<0.53`$ V. And finally, at $`T=0.15\text{}0.11`$ K oscillations become visible when the conductance is between the second and third quantum $`4e^2/h<G<6e^2/h`$. This division into groups of oscillations is traced down to $`T=0.05`$ K. Within the groups, additional modulation of the amplitude of oscillations is pronounced and correlates with the resonant features of the background conductance $`G_{\mathrm{RA}}`$. Thus, each group can be characterized by the temperature at which its oscillations become visible. The fact that the frequent oscillations appear at $`T=1\text{}0.5`$ K before the wider resonant features do at $`T<0.2`$ K precludes their unified interpetation by transmission resonances at coincidences of quasidiscrete levels of the dot with Fermi level. Indeed, the energy scale, i. e. critical $`k_BT`$ of the frequent oscillations exceeds that of the wider features, while the resonances at the single-particle levels would have smaller energy spacing than the width of Fabry-Pérot resonances.

The level spacing estimated from Aharonov-Bohm oscillations following the method described in Ref.  gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }E12\mu `$eV, comparable to the thermal smearing at 150 mK. On the other hand, estimating the charging energy from the critical temperature $`T1`$ K at which the oscillations are still observed results in $`e^2/2C_\mathrm{\Sigma }0.2`$ meV. Thus the observed oscillations are not due to resonances on single-particle levels of the dot and can be described in terms of the Coulomb charging picture where the 0D quantum confinement energy is much smaller than the Coulomb charging energy.

The most likely explanation for the frequent oscillations showing up in the region $`G>2e^2/h`$ with lowering temperature is the decrease of the decay probability of the localized states in the dot via fully transmitted 1D-subbands. Increasing the temperature enhances the mixing between transmitted and closed 1D-subbands such that oscillations suppressed at $`G>4e^2/h`$ (two 1D-subbands are fully transmitted), thereafter become suppressed at $`G>2e^2/h`$ (1D-subband), and eventually at $`G<e^2/h`$, where only tunneling decay of the localized states is possible.

### C Gate voltage dependences of oscillations

Figure 6 demonstrates how the background conductance $`G_{\mathrm{RA}}(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ (a) and the oscillations less the background (b) change with incremental voltage steps on the outermost finger gates $`V_{\mathrm{F1},3}`$ at $`T=50`$ mK. One can see that the oscillations of $`G(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ gradually evolve with similar shape and periodicity from the region $`G>2e^2/h`$ to the region $`G<2e^2/h`$, indicating their common physical origin. Since for $`G<2e^2/h`$ Coulomb blockade theory holds and the oscillations are due to Coulomb charging, the observed evolution of the oscillations to $`G>2e^2/h`$ serves as an experimental confirmation of the single-electron nature of all the oscillations.

From the observed Aharonov-Bohm type oscillations the dot area was determined to be $`A=2.81\times 10^{13}`$ m2 and the number of electrons was $`n=126`$ for $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.5`$ V, $`V_{\mathrm{F1}}=1.941`$ V, and $`V_{\mathrm{F3}}=1.776`$ V. Provided that every conductance oscillation corresponds to a change of the dot charge by $`e`$, one can determine (from the total number of oscillations $`\mathrm{\Delta }n50`$) that there are still $`70`$ electrons within the dot at pinch-off $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.65`$ V.

Note that the modulation of the oscillation amplitude in Fig. 6(b) allows us to trace the movement of the oscillations for different $`\left(V_{\mathrm{SG}},V_\mathrm{F}=(V_{\mathrm{F1}}+V_{\mathrm{F3}})/2\right)`$ along almost parallel lines which corresponds to the conservation of the dot charge $`Q=ne`$. Two such lines are shown dashed in Fig. 6(b); where both horizontal and vertical separation between them obeys the same condition $`\delta Q=e`$. Wide stripes of amplitude modulation markedly divide the oscillations into groups in agreement with Fig. 5(b), and their slope reproduces that of the conductance threshold. Also, the groups of oscillations correlate with the locations of the resonant features of the background $`G_{\mathrm{RA}}`$ in Fig. 6(a).

The background conductance $`G_{\mathrm{RA}}(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ \[see Fig. 6(a)\] contains both steps and bumps which move with the conductance threshold as the finger gate voltage raises the barriers in the constrictions; these features are smeared out and completely disappear with decreasing transparency of the barriers. There are several reasons for such behaviour. Firstly, the tops of the barriers in the constrictions approach the Fermi level with a large negative voltage on the finger gates. Any small, but inevitable, asymmetry between the two constrictions on the transport properties will be enhanced, causing the height of the steps and resonant peaks of the conductance to reduce. Secondly, smearing of the features that occurs at lower negative voltages $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$, when $`V_{\mathrm{F1},3}`$ increases, is favoured by a widening of the constrictions over this voltage range thereby reducing the intersubband spacing there. And lastly, any decrease of the transparency of the barriers increases the electron dwell time in the dot and the role of decoherence, such that the constrictions start acting independently. The quantised coductance steps for a single constrictions smear out in this voltage regime as shown by both measurements \[see Ref. , Fig. 2(a)\] and modelling.

The condition $`\delta Q=e`$ can be used to find the capacitances between the dot and the gates of the sample. For this purpose the periods of conductance oscillations versus gate voltages were measured, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{F1}}=23.8`$ mV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{F2}}=8.7`$ mV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{F3}}=25.9`$ mV, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{SG}}=3.6`$ mV. According to this the total gate-dot capacitance $`C_g`$ is estimated to be $`7.6\times 10^{17}`$ F.

## III Numerical results

### A Electrostatics

In order to check the correspondence between the observed period of oscillations and the change of the dot charge by one electron, and to obtain an estimate of the charging energy, we calculated the capacitance of the dot with respect to the contacts, fingers, and split gates. The electrostatic potential profile in the device was determined by solution of the 3D Poisson equation with a local 2DEG density given by the 2D Thomas-Fermi approximation assuming a boundary condition of frozen charge at the surface states and impurities. It was checked that fluctuation potential in this structure due to ionised dopants is absent due to the wide AlGaAs spacer ($`100`$ nm).

The conformity of this fairly simple model to the experiment was checked by calculation of the pinch-off voltages. The calculated Fermi level $`E_F=5`$ meV in the 2DEG reservoirs corresponds to the measured carrier density $`n=1.6\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. In the calculations the same voltage $`V_\mathrm{F}`$ was applied to the outermost finger gates, and the central finger gate was set at zero voltage. At $`V_\mathrm{F}=0`$ the channel pinches off when $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=1.8`$ V (the same as in the experiment). When $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.7`$ V the finger gates raise the potential barriers in the constrictions above the Fermi level at $`V_\mathrm{F}=1.4`$ V (experimentally the split-gate pinches off at $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.7`$ V when $`V_{\mathrm{F1}}=1.9`$ V and $`V_{\mathrm{F3}}=1.7`$ V). We ascribe this small difference between the calculated ($`V_\mathrm{F}`$) and experimental ($`V_{\mathrm{F1}},V_{\mathrm{F3}}`$) values to the fact that we do not take into account the capacitances of the finger gates with respect to the shield of the structure (we also neglect electric field lines going above the PMMA layer).

We calculated the potential profile, charge distribution and the total charge of the dot, as well as the capacitances in the range $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.75`$ to $`0.5`$ V and $`V_\mathrm{F}=1.3`$ to $`1.4`$ V which closely agrees with the range of experimental gate voltages specified for the traces in Figs. 35. These results are shown in Figure 7 which shows maps of the charge density in the quantum dot for closed and open states. With lowering $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ the dot stretches along $`y`$ axis and becomes rectangular.

Transverse cross sections of the electrostatic potential in the 2DEG are shown in Fig. 8(a,b) for two different $`x`$ coordinates along the channel: in the center of the dot at $`x=0`$, and directly beneath the finger gates at $`x=270`$ nm. By changing the voltage $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ the dot transforms from a closed state (a) to an open state (b), with a corresponding change in the width of both the dot and the constriction. The voltage on the finger gates control both the height of the barriers and the width of the constrictions (Fig. 9) with little change in the depth of the dot. At large finger gate voltages $`V_\mathrm{F}=1.3`$ to $`1.4`$ V and low side-gate voltages $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}0.5`$ V the transverse potential profile of the constriction resembles a rectangular well (Fig. 9). With the central finger gate kept at zero voltage, the width and depth of the quantum dot were found to depend on $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ only. It is interesting to note that the presence of zero-biased F2 makes the dot 0.5 meV deeper in energy and stabilizes its depth at $`3`$ meV \[see Fig. 8(a,b)\]. On the other hand, if the voltage on the outermost finger gates is fixed and the central finger gate voltage is varied, it mainly changes the depth of the potential in the quantum dot (Fig. 10).

The calculations show that the number of electrons in the dot changes from 80 to 140 as the side gate voltage changes from $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.7`$ V to $`0.5`$ V (with fixed $`V_{\mathrm{F1}}=V_{\mathrm{F3}}=1.3`$ V). This change in the number of electrons corresponds to the number of oscillations observed in Fig. 3. Calculated capacitances of the dot to the gates are also close to the experimentally estimated ones and lay within the measured period variation (Table I). In calculations the capacitances demonstrated the same systematic drift with $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{F}`$ as observed in Fig. 3(b). Thus, the conclusion that each oscillation of the conductance reflects the change of the dot charge by one electron is confirmed.

By introducing a small Fermi level difference between the dot and the 2DEG reservoirs, we calculated the capacitance of the dot with respect to both contacts as $`C_r=340\text{}370`$ aF for an almost closed quantum dot. The capacitance is doubled when three 1D-subbands become transmitted. Thus, this capacitance is almost an order of magnitude higher than that to the gates and cannot be neglected, so the charging energy is $`e^2/2C=0.1\text{}0.2`$ meV, where $`C=C_r+e/\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{SG}}+e/\mathrm{\Delta }V_\mathrm{F}+e/\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{F2}}`$, comparable to the thermal broadening at $`T1\text{}2`$ K. As Fig. 5 shows, near the pinch-off the conductance oscillations persist up to 1 K, in accordance with the conventional theory of Coulomb blockade. The decrease of the charging energy to 0.1 meV at $`G6e^2/h`$, as found in the calculations of the electrostatics, should lower the limiting temperature for observing the oscillations in this range to $`0.5`$ K. Figure 5 shows that in reality the measured temperature is still 3 times smaller. This strong reduction could be caused by an enhanced decay of the localized states via two fully transmitted subbands and an increase in the intersubband mixing.

### B Comparing quantum dots of different types

To understand the difference between the dot under study \[Fig. 11(a)\] and a more standard quantum dot (where the constrictions are induced by two pairs of split gates and Coulomb oscillations are observed only at $`G<e^2/h`$) calculations of the electrostatics were also carried out for the case in which the outermost 160 nm wide finger gates were separated by a 260 nm gap \[Fig. 11(b)\]. We will denote those devices as A and B, respectively. Except for the finger gates, all the parameters of devices A and B are the same. Calculated capacitances of the quantum dot in closed and open states for cases A and B are similar. The essential differences between the electrostatic potentials in the plane of the 2DEG only appear in the constrictions. In device B, the barriers in the constrictions $`x=x_c`$ are lower, and the transverse cross section of potential there resembles a deep and narrow parabola $`U(x_c,y)=U_c+m\omega _c^2y^2/2`$ with energy quantum $`\mathrm{}\omega _c=0.6\text{}0.8`$ meV \[Fig. 11(d)\]. The quantum in the centre of the channel $`x_d=0`$ (the quantum dot) is 2–3 times smaller: $`\mathrm{}\omega _d=0.2\text{}0.3`$ meV. In device A the transverse potential in the constriction resembles a cut parabola \[Fig. 11(c)\], so the lowest 1D subbands are denser near the bottom, like that in a rectangular potential well. When the quantum dot is open for transmission via the first subband, the 1D subband spacing in device A is almost equal both inside the dot and constrictions: $`E_{n+1}E_n=0.2\text{}0.3`$ meV.

The energy levels of transverse quantization $`E_n(x)`$ were determined from a solution of the Schrödinger equation for the calculated electrostatic potential $`U(x,y)`$ by a tight-binding method. To impose zero boundary conditions for transverse motion, infinite walls were put at 600 nm from the axis of the channel. The picture of 1D-subbands shows how the subband spacing changes along the channel axis and how many subbands are open for transmission through the quantum dot at a given Fermi level.

Figures 11(e,f) show the positions of three lowest 1D-subbands $`E_n(x)`$ for devices A and B. The Fermi level is shown by a dotted line and corresponds to zero energy. In case A, the subband spacing is almost independent of $`x`$. This means that the transverse cross sections of potential in the dot and in the constrictions have the shape of the same parabola, in other words $`U(x,y)=U(x)+m\omega _c^2y^2/2`$. Then the variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ in the Schrödinger equation are separated, and the motion along $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions is described by separate equations, with no mixing between different 1D subbands. Thus the transmission problem reduces to one-dimensional one.

Contrarily, in device B, where there is a gap between the finger gates, 1D subbands are not parallel and the intersubband spacing changes by 2–3 times along the channel \[Fig. 11(f)\]. Thus the potential has such a shape that the variables in the Schrödinger equation cannot be separated, the mixing between 1D-subbands is strong and the motion is essentially two-dimensional. Electron transmission can only be considered one-dimensional when the first subband is opening and the transmission coefficient $`T<1`$.

These assumptions about one-dimensional transmission in device A and two-dimensional transmission in device B are supported by numerical calculations of multiple-mode transmission, as described in the next sub-section.

### C Electron transmission through quantum dots

Two-dimensional transmission was calculated on the same grid in variables $`(x,y)`$ as the Poisson equation was solved for $`U(x,y)`$. Along the channel axis $`x`$, energy levels $`E_n`$ in each transverse cross section and transfer matrix elements between adjacent cross sections were determined and then the multiple-mode transmission problem was solved by means of scattering $`S`$-matrices. The conductance relates to the total transmission coefficient according to the Landauer formula:

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}T,T=\underset{n}{}T_n,T_n=\underset{k}{}|T_{nk}|^2.$$

The transmission was calculated for quantum dots and single constrictions (half the quantum dot). In Fig. 12(a) plots of the Fermi energy dependence of the total transmission coefficient and its modal contributions are shown for device A ($`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.49`$ V, $`V_\mathrm{F}=1.4`$ V). The dashed lines show the transmission through single constrictions. When the first mode is 50% transmitted, the second mode has already reached 30% and so on. For small values of the transverse quantum $`\mathrm{}\omega =E_2E_1=0.2`$ meV, conductance quantization is smeared out on a single constriction, though it can occur for resonant transmission through two barriers in series.

Transmissions in the quantum dot are shown by the solid lines in Fig. 12. For device A the transmission curves for the first to third subbands resemble each other but with an offset in energy by the transverse quantum. Similar behaviour is observed in the split gate voltage dependence of the transmission in Fig. 13 which models the experimental situation shown in Fig. 3.

It is important that only a few resonant features are present in $`T_n(E)`$ and $`T_n(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ — those are Fabry-Pérot resonances in the system of two barriers. The narrowest ones of the resonances are marked with triangles and refer to the tunneling regime of the corresponding subbands; they are smeared out in measurements and not visible in Fig. 3 since in this regime the transport is sequential rather than coherent. Contrarily, the wide resonances refer to above-barrier coherent transmission (marked with asterisks) and give rise to every next step of conductance quantization in Figs. 35. It seems that the conductance steps in Fig. 3 are not the property of a single barrier, but the property of the pair of barriers \[see Figs. 13 and 12(a)\]. The difference in the height of the barriers of $`0.1\text{}0.2`$ meV (weak asymmetry of the structure) causes no subband mixing but reduces the conductance steps and shifts the resonances (e. g. dotted curve in Fig. 12). This asymmetry can explain the observed transformation of background conductance $`G_{\mathrm{RA}}(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ in Fig. 6(a).

The total transmission coefficient and modal distribution for device B are shown in Fig. 12(b) ($`V_{\mathrm{SG}}=0.5`$ V, $`V_\mathrm{F}=1.6`$ V). Dotted curves show transmission with pronounced steps for a single constriction. Because of the large subband spacing the tunneling in closed subbands is negligible. In transmission through the dot, however, the transport may go via the higher subbands due to mixing with lower open subbands. For instance, nonzero transmission via the third subband occurs due to coupling to the first subband even if the second subband is not yet transmitted. When $`2e^2/h<G<6e^2/h`$, the transport involves more than five modes and higher modes contribute much more to the conductance than those in device A. The intersubband mixing shows up in the $`T(E_F)`$ dependence as sharp Fano resonances due to electron scattering from the levels of the dot \[Fig. 12(b)\]. The dependence $`T(V_{\mathrm{SG}})`$ is similar to $`T(E_F)`$: transmission is one-dimensional at $`T<1`$ and already multimodal at $`T>1`$. It should be noted that while 1D-subbands in device A become absolutely transparent ($`T_n=1`$) with increasing energy or $`V_{\mathrm{SG}}`$, the transparency of open subbands in device B changes resonantly from 0 to 80–90% due to intersubband mixing. This can explain why charging effects are smeared out at $`T>1`$ in more standard quantum dots.

Figure 14 shows the modelled dependence of the conductance on the central finger gate voltage $`G(V_{\mathrm{F2}})`$. The corresponding deformation of the potential in the dot and constrictions was shown in Fig. 10. The depth of the potential in the dot decreases, and the resonances due to 1D interference on the two barriers cross the Fermi level one by one. The calculated coherent transmission is shown in Fig. 14 by the solid curve from which the dashed curve without sharp peaks is obtained by smoothing. Five wide Fabry-Pérot resonances are clearly seen in the figure which are also present on the experimental curves (the background in Fig. 4).

The fact that the number of frequent oscillations in experimental curves (Figs. 3, 4) differs drastically from the number of resonant features in the calculated transmission coefficients (Figs. 13, 14) demonstrates that the observed frequent oscillations are not due to interference effects of coherent electron transmission through quasi-discrete states of the quantum dot. In the coherent regime an electron does not scatter on most levels in the absence of mode mixing. The suppression of mode mixing is a consequence of the geometry of the dot and the corresponding selected range of voltages at finger and side gates. Large negative voltage at overlaying finger gates flattens the potential across the channel so that the separation between the lowest 1D-subbands in the constrictions becomes as small as that in the dot \[Fig. 11(e)\]. Calculation of the transmission coefficients show that mode mixing is strengthened when the conductance rises to $`G6e^2/h`$. This explains why the amplitude of the measured conductance oscillations and the temperature at which the oscillations vanish are reduced in this voltage range.

## IV Qualitative explanation of oscillations

Based on the modelling of the electrostatics and coherent transmission we suggest the following scenario of Coulomb charging in an open quantum dot. There are three important features that the new type of dot possesses: 1) coupling between localized and transmitted subbands is suppressed; 2) coherent transmission and sequential tunneling coexist; 3) the charging energy and 1D-subband spacing in the constrictions are commensurate.

We presume that in the absence of intersubband mixing the transport in the low-transparency subbands is due to sequential tunneling with single-electron charging of the dot, resulting in the conductance oscillations (Figs. 36). The open subbands transmit the electrons coherently and provide a parallel background current with Fabry-Pérot resonances and quantization steps in the conductance. With each new step the single-electron charging in the opening subband ceases but it still takes place in a higher (low-transparency) subband, since the intersubband transition probability in the dot is very small at low temperature. Apparently, when the transmissions via different 1D-subbands are independent, Coulomb charging effects are manifested in a similar manner for each opening subband. That the experimentally observed conductance oscillations are continuous is due to the small spacing of transverse quantization levels in the constrictions, leading to stronger tunneling via closed subbands compared to more standard quantum dot devices.

The fact that the spacing of 1D-subbands $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ in the constrictions is approximately equal to the charging energy $`e^2/2C=0.1\text{}0.2`$ meV can account for the uniformity and smoothness of the observed oscillations. Indeed, electron localization and tunneling makes the charge on the dot follow the quantization, i. e. the dependence of the dot charge on gate voltage departs from linearity proportionality towards the step function \[Fig. 15(a)\]. From electrostatics it follows that the deviation of the dot charge $`Q`$ from the value $`C_gV_g`$ produces a voltage difference $`V_b`$ between the dot and reservoirs. Precise charge quantization, if it were in the Coulomb blockade regime, would lead to sawtooth modulation of $`V_b`$ between $`V_b=e/2C`$ and $`V_b=e/2C`$ as the value $`C_gV_g`$ changes by $`e`$ \[Fig. 15(b)\]. However, because of the condition $`e^2/2C\mathrm{}\omega `$ the transparency of the barriers in the constrictions varies strongly with changing $`V_b`$ and thus causes a periodic change of that part $`q`$ of the dot charge which is associated with the population of the delocalized states. As a result of continuous change of $`q`$ ($`|q|<e/2`$) the steps and sawteeth of the gate voltage dependences $`Q(V_g)`$ and $`V_b(V_g)`$ are smoothed. Nevertheless, if the decay rate from the localized states to the transmitted ones is low these features survive even if the transport is coherent and fully transmitted subbands are present. One may imagine that charge $`q`$ plays the same role as the polarization charge of the Coulomb island plays in the conventional theory of Coulomb blockade. In this theory, when parameter $`q`$ is kept constant, the charge becomes strictly quantized at zero temperature. However, temporal fluctuations of $`q`$ widen the sharp features in $`Q(V_g)`$ and $`V_b(V_g)`$. In our case the situation is similar.

We have numerically found that the transparency of the quantum dot changes by $`0.3(e^2/h)`$ when $`V_b`$ is varied by only $`0.1e/C`$ (the bottom of the dot is raised by $`0.1e^2/C`$). Thus, the periodic change of the embedded voltage $`V_b`$ with gate voltage results in single electron conductance oscillations in the coherent current \[Fig. 15(c)\].

Because the charging energy and the subband spacing in constrictions are approximately equal it follows that there is no principal difference between regimes $`G>2e^2/h`$ and $`G<2e^2/h`$. In reality, besides coherent transmission there is sequential tunneling that leads to spontaneous switching between adjacent charge states of the dot. Thus for $`G<2e^2/h`$ significant time is spent in a charge state with highly transparent potential barriers and similarly, for $`2e^2/h<G<4e^2/h`$ the dot often happens to be in a charge state with a low transparency of the barriers. Consequently the observed charge oscillations of the conductance appear uniformly smoothed. In addition, the amplitude and the period of such oscillations fluctuate because of the variations of the steps shape in $`Q(V_g)`$.

On the other hand, if there is strong intersubband mixing in the quantum dot, then the dot charge $`Q`$ undergoes large fluctuations due to coupling to the reservoirs via transmitted subbands. Then quantization of $`Q`$ in the open quantum dot is destroyed, and the charge effects in $`G(V_g)`$ are smeared out. Nevertheless, in submicrometer quantum dots the transverse quantum in constrictions $`\mathrm{}\omega 1`$ meV is usually noticeably greater than the charging energy and pronounced Coulomb oscillations can be observed near and below the conductance treshold where the saw-like dependence of $`V_b(V_g)`$ is retained.

## V Conclusions

We have investigated the low-temperature properties of an open quantum dot electrostatically defined by a split gate, and overlaying narrow finger gates at zero magnetic field. Almost periodic and continuous oscillations superimposed upon ballistic conductance steps and Fabry-Pérot resonances are observed even when the conductance through the quantum dot is greater than $`2e^2/h`$. A direct transition of conductance oscillations for $`G>2e^2/h`$ to those for $`G<2e^2/h`$ is observed with decreasing barrier transparencies. The temperature dependence of the observed oscillating features for $`G>2e^2/h`$ and modelling of electron transport excludes the interpretation that they are due to tunneling through single-particle confinement energy states within the dot. Calculated capacitances of the dot to the gates and reservoirs confirm the Coulomb charging nature of the oscillations. Modelling the electrostatics and electron transmission through the quantum dot show that intersubband mixing in our device is greatly reduced in comparison with more standard quantum dots. We have found that in this new design of quantum dot device the charging energy is approximately equal to the subband spacing in the barriers. Suppression of intersubband mixing and high sensitivity of barrier transparency to variations of the Fermi level in the dot made it possible to observe smoothed charged and interference effects over a wide conductance range $`0<G<6e^2/h`$. These results suggest that at zero magnetic field charging effects can occur in the presence of a fully transmitted 1D channel, in contrast to the current experimental and theoretical understanding of Coulomb charging.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by programs of Ministry of Science of Russian Federation “Physics of Solid-State Nanostructures” (grant No. 98-1102) and “Prospective Technologies and Devices for Micro- and Nanoelectronics” (No. 02.04.5.1), and by program “Universities of Russia—Fundamental Research” (No. 1994). The work at Cambridge was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), United Kingdom. C.T.L. is grateful for financial support from National Sciences Council (grant No. 89-2112-M-002-052). O.A.T., V.A.T. and D.G.B. are grateful to Kvon Ze Don and M. V. Éntin for discussions. O.A.T. and D.G.B. thank the colleagues from Cavendish Lab., especially C. J. B. Ford, for fruitful discussions and hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Homogeneous magnetic fields in fully anisotropic string cosmological backgrounds

\[

## Abstract

We present new solutions of the string cosmological effective action in the presence of a homogeneous Maxwell field with pure magnetic component. Exact solutions are derived in the case of space-independent dilaton and vanishing torsion background. In our examples the four dimensional metric is either of Bianchi-type III and VI-1 or Kantowski-Sachs.

\]

The solutions of the low-energy string cosmological effective action are, by their nature anisotropic . In this context, it is important to analyze the role of the different possible sources of anisotropy in the low energy string effective action. An interesting and motivated source of anisotropy is represented by pure magnetic fields . Exact string cosmological solutions (containing a magnetic field) were recently found for Bianchi-type I background geometries in the case of a vanishing torsion background and for a space-independent dilaton field . It was shown that while the anisotropy can increase for some time, the string tension corrections (combined with the post big-bang evolution) are likely to force the anisotropy to decay.

The purpose of our paper is very simple: we want to generalize the Bianchi-type I solutions of the string cosmological effective action to the case where the homogeneous magnetic field is contained in more general homogeneous (but still anisotropic) metrics. In the context of the low-energy string effective action, the analysis of Bianchi-type classes has been performed (in the absence of any electromagnetic background) by Gasperini and Ricci .

In the Bianchi-type I case the homogeneous magnetic (or electric) background is not constrained by the group theoretical properties of the (Abelian) isometry group. In spite of this observation the solutions of the string cosmological effective action are not trivial in the sense that they cannot be found in the usual general relativity literature. The reason is that the dilaton field $`\varphi `$ couples directly to the kinetic term of the Abelian gauge field. In four space-time dimensions such a coupling can be expressed as $`e^\varphi F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{}3`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Abelian gauge field strength. Bianchi models (different from Bianchi-type I) are characterized by a non-Abelian isometry group: the Killing vectors (leaving invariant the three-dimensional spatial submanifold) do not commute. Therefore, we face the problem of accommodating an Abelian gauge field in a geometry whose algebraic structure is non-Abelian. The consequence of this remark is that not all non-Abelian isometry groups will be able to support a homogeneous electromagnetic field. More precisely, only Bianchi-type I, II, III, VI-1 and VII0 can accommodate a homogeneous magnetic field polarized along a fixed direction . This observation holds in the case of general relativity (where the coupling of the metric to the Maxwell fields is dictated by the equivalence principle) and also in our case provided the dilaton field is space-independent and provided we deal with pure magnetic field (i.e. the homogeneous components of the electric fields are all vanishing).

In order to show this point in detail let us look at the relevant Maxwell’s equations. Then we will specify the background geometry which is uniquely characterized by the group theoretical properties of the algebra of the Killing vectors. Finally, we will be able to show which Bianchi-type metrics can (or cannot) be compatible with the presence of a homogeneous (Abelian) magnetic field. Let us start from the Maxwell’s equations and from the related Bianchi identities

$$_\mu \left(e^\varphi \sqrt{g}F^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the dual field strength..

In the absence of electric fields and for the case of space-independent dilaton background the gauge field strengths can be written, in the language of differential forms, as

$$F=\frac{1}{2}B_iϵ_{ijk}\sigma ^j\sigma ^k,^{}F=B_i\sigma ^i\sigma ^0,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma ^0=dt`$ and $`\sigma ^i=R_j^i\omega ^j`$ form the Cartan basis of one-form; the two-form $`F`$ represents the electromagnetic field and $`{}_{}{}^{}F`$ its dual. The matrices $`R_i^j`$ depend only on time. If we take, for instance Cartesian coordinates as local basis the relation between the exterior derivative of the invariant basis is given by :

$$d\omega ^i=\frac{1}{2}C_{jk}^i\omega ^j\omega ^k$$
(3)
where $`C_{jk}^i`$ are the structure constants of the three dimesional isometry group which appear in the commutation relations of the Killing vectors. For the case of Bianchi-type I we have that $`C_{jk}^i`$ are identically zero (i.e. the isometry group is Abelian). For the other Bianchi-type geometries the structure constants are not all vanishing (i.e. the isometry group is non-Abelian).

By now expressing Eqs. (1) in the invariant basis of the $`\omega ^i`$ and by recalling that the dilaton field is only time dependent we obtain a system of three linear equations, namely

$`\dot{Z}_a=0,M_jC_{ab}^jϵ_{cab}=0,`$ (4)
$`Z_jC_{aj}^j=0,`$ (5)
where the over-dot denotes differentiation with respect to $`t`$ and where

$`Z_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_iϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{abc}R_b^jR_c^k,`$ (6)
$`M_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_j^iB_i.`$ (7)
The solution of the first of Eqs. (4) gives $`Z_a=q_a`$ where $`q_a`$ are constant vectors. Therefore Eqs. (4)–(5) can be written as

$$Z_a=q_a,q_aC_{ja}^j=0,M_jC_{ab}^j=0.$$
(8)
It is clear from these expressions that in the case where all the $`C_{jk}^i=0`$ the magnetic field components are not constrained since all the equations (8) are identically statisfied for any vector $`B_i`$ and $`q_a`$. In the Bianchi-type II case we have that the only non-vanishing structure constant is $`C_{23}^1=1`$. In this case the first two equations of (8) are always satisfied, whereas the third of Eqs. (8) constrains the magnetic field to vanish in one specific direction (i.e. the magnetic field can only have two independent components). Similarly, in the Bianchi-type III case the only non-vansihing structure constant is $`C_{23}^2=1`$ and therefore both, the second and the third equation of (8) will be non trivially satisfied. Thus in Bianchi-type III models the magnetic field will have only one independent component: the other two will have to vanish for the compatibility with the non-Abelian structure of the isometry group. In the Bianchi-type IV and V cases the structure constants are, respectively

$`C_{13}^1=C_{23}^1=C_{23}^2=1,\mathrm{IV},`$ (9)
$`C_{13}^1=C_{23}^2=1,\mathrm{V}.`$ (10)
From the second of Eq. (8) we see that, in the Bianchi-type IV and V, $`q_3=0`$. Moreover form the third of Eq. (8) we see that $`B_k=0`$. Therefore, in the Bianchi-type IV and V the isometry group is only compatible with a vanishing (pure) magnetic field.

In the Bianchi-type VI and VII the structure constants are, respectively,

$`C_{13}^1=1,C_{23}^2=h,\mathrm{VI},`$ (11)
$`C_{32}^1=C_{13}^2=1,C_{23}^2=h,\mathrm{VII}.`$ (12)
In the case of Bianchi-type VI a magnetic field can be only present (though with only one independent component) if $`h=1`$ . Only in this case one can consistently satisfy the second of Eqs. (8). In the Bianchi-type VII geometry, for the same reason, a magnetic field (with one independent component) can be present only if $`h=0`$. Finally in the Bianchi-type VIII and IX metrics the structure constants are, respectively

$`C_{23}^1=C_{12}^3=C_{13}^2=1,\mathrm{VIII},`$ (13)
$`C_{ij}^k=ϵ_{ijk},\mathrm{IX}.`$ (14)
In these two last cases we can see that the third equation of (8) implies that $`B_iR^ij=0`$ which is identically satisfied only in the absence of any magnetic background.

In conclusion we showed that if the dilaton field only depends upon time and if the electric field is absent  only the Bianchi-type I, II, III, VI-1, VII0 are compatible with the presence of a magnetic background. In the Bianchi-type I case no constraint on the components of the magnetic field is present. In the other Bianchi-type models the magnetic field is always constrained. In the Bianchi-type IV, V, VIh≠1, VIIh≠0, VIII, IX cases we cannot accommodate a pure (Abelian) magnetic field.

What we discussed, up to now is only a sufficient condition in order to accommodate a magnetic background with time dependent dilaton in a Bianchi-type geometry. Our analysis does not guarantee the existence of explicit (exact) solutions.

In the following, as an example, we want to present few exact solutions containing both a magnetic field, a time-dependent dilaton and a background geometry with non-Abelian isometry group. The action ***We work in string units and we set the string tension $`\alpha ^{}`$ equal to one we ought to study is

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}e^\varphi \left[R+g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right]$$
(15)
whose associated equations of motion can be written as

$`Rg^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +2g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta },`$ (16)
$`R_\mu ^\nu +_\mu ^\nu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\mu \alpha }F^{\nu \alpha }=0,`$ (17)
$`_\mu \left[e^\varphi F^{\mu \nu }\right]=0.`$ (18)
where $`_\mu `$ denotes covariant differentiation with respect to the background metric. Notice that in writing the previous action we assumed zero central charge deficit. This means that the six internal dimensions are assumed to be compactified with constant radius. For sake of simplicity we choose to parametrize our line element as

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)dx^2b^2(t)e^{2\lambda x}dy^2c^2(t)dz^2.$$
(19)
Notice that for $`\lambda =1`$ we have the Bianchi III line element, whereas the case $`\lambda =2`$ we get the Bianchi VI-1 case. In the metric of Eq. (19) the components of Eqs. (16)–(18) can be found by direct projection on the spatial vielbein. Care must be taken, however, in solving the generalized Maxwell equation (18). Eq. (18) together with the Bianchi identities imply, in the absence of sources, that a pure magnetic field can be accommodated along the $`z`$ axis so that $`F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }=2B^2/a^2b^2`$ ($`B`$ is a constant). With these specifications and by defining the shifted time  The over-dot denotes derivation with respect to the cosmic time coordinate $`t`$. derivative of the dilaton $`\dot{\overline{\varphi }}=\dot{\varphi }(H+F+G)`$ together with the expansion rates along the three different spatial directions (i.e. $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, $`F=\dot{b}/b`$ and $`G=\dot{c}/c`$) we get to

$`2\ddot{\overline{\varphi }}\dot{\overline{\varphi }}^2(H^2+F^2+G^2)+2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2a^2b^2}}=0,`$ (20)
$`\ddot{\overline{\varphi }}(H^2+F^2+G^2)=0,`$ (21)
$`H\dot{\overline{\varphi }}\dot{H}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2a^2b^2}}=0,`$ (22)
$`F\dot{\overline{\varphi }}\dot{F}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2a^2b^2}}=0,`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{a^2}}(HF)=0,`$ (24)
In order to solve exactly the previous system we can define a new time coordinate, namely, $`dt=e^{\overline{\varphi }}d\eta `$. By denoting with a prime the derivatives with respect to $`\eta `$ we can re-write the system of equations (20)–(24) as

$`𝒢^{}=0,=,`$ (25)
$`^{}=\lambda ^2a^2c^2e^{2\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2}}c^2e^{2\varphi },`$ (26)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2Q\varphi ^{}Q^{}+P=0,`$ (27)
$`Q(\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g}}{d\eta }},P=2(2+𝒢)`$ (28)
where the prime denotes now the derivative with respect to $`\eta `$ and where $`=a^{}/a`$, $`=b^{}/b`$, $`𝒢=c^{}/c`$. By linearly combining the previous equations and by defining $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi \mathrm{ln}c`$ the equation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=\frac{B^2}{2}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(29)
can be integrated directly twice with the result that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\delta }{\gamma }\mathrm{cosh}\gamma (\eta \eta _0)\right],$$
(30)
where $`\delta =B/\sqrt{2}`$; $`\gamma `$ and $`\eta _0`$ are integration constants. By now going to Eq. (26) and by making the ansatz $`a(\eta )=e^\mathrm{\Phi }f(\eta )`$ we get an equation for $`f(\eta )`$

$$\left(\frac{f^{}}{f}\right)^{}=\lambda ^2f^2,$$
(31)
which, again, can be directly integrated with the result that

$$f(\eta )=\frac{\beta }{\lambda |\mathrm{sinh}\beta (\eta \eta _0)|}$$
(32)
Putting all our results together we obtain that

$`\varphi (\eta )=\mathrm{ln}c_0+𝒢_0\eta +\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\gamma }}\mathrm{cosh}\gamma (\eta \eta _0)\right],`$ (33)
$`a(\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \delta }{\lambda \gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\gamma (\eta \eta _0)}{|\mathrm{sinh}\beta (\eta \eta _0)|}},`$ (34)
$`c(\eta )=c_0e^{𝒢_0\eta }.`$ (35)
By requiring the consistency of this solution with the constraint equation we find that $`2\beta ^2=\gamma ^2+𝒢_0^2`$.

It is interesting to notice that the solution we just obtained can be related to the solution of the same set of Eqs. (16)–(18) in a Kantowski-Sachs  metric with a magnetic field oriented along the radial coordinate. The Kantowski-Sachs line element can be written as

$$ds^2=dt^2m^2(t)dr^2n^2(t)[d\theta ^2+A^2(\theta )d\chi ^2].$$
(36)
where $`A(\theta )=\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{sinh}\theta `$. If a magnetic field directed along the radial direction is present, then, the equations of motion (17)–(18) will become

$`^{}=0,`$ (37)
$`𝒩^{}=kn^2m^2e^{2\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2}}m^2e^{2\varphi },`$ (38)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2Q\varphi ^{}Q^{}+P=0,`$ (39)
$`Q(\eta )=(+2𝒩),P=2(𝒩+2𝒩^2),`$ (40)
where $`k=+1,0,1`$ if, respectively, $`A(\theta )=\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\theta ,\mathrm{sinh}\theta `$. This system can be integrated with the same techniques we discussed in the Bianchi case. Notice, moreover, that in the case $`k=1`$ the analogy with the solutions (33)–(35) is complete.

We want now to discuss the cosmic-time evolution of our solutions. Let us focus, for instance, on the Bianchi-type II case ($`\lambda =1`$). On the basis of our results we can consistently choose $`\beta =\gamma =1`$. The consistency relation $`2\beta ^2=\gamma ^2+𝒢_0^2`$ implies that $`𝒢_0=1`$ in string units. The relation between $`\eta `$ and the cosmic time coordinate can be obtained by direct integration of $`a^2ce^\varphi d\eta =dt`$. The result is

$$\eta (t)=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\delta }{t}+\sqrt{1+\frac{\delta ^2}{t^2}}\right].$$
(41)
We want, in particular, to analyze our solutions for $`t<0`$. The solutions given in Eqs. (33)–(35) can then be expressed as

$`a(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t^2+\delta ^2}}{\delta }},`$ (42)
$`c(t)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{t}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{t^2}}+1}\right)^1,`$ (43)
$`\varphi (t)=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\frac{\delta ^2}{t^2}}}{\frac{\delta }{t}+\sqrt{1+\frac{\delta ^2}{t^2}}}}\right].`$ (44)
In order to write the solutions in this form we also have chosen $`c_0=1`$ and $`\eta _0=0`$. The choice $`\eta _0=0`$ simply translates in the origin the curvature singularity which appears clearly in $`F=\dot{c}/c`$. For $`t<0`$ the dilaton coupling grows. The scale factor $`a(t)`$ contracts to a minimal value determined by $`\delta `$, i.e. by the value of the magnetic field in string units. The scale factor $`c(t)`$ expands towards a singularity at $`t=0`$.

It is finally interesting to compute the shear parameter in the case we just described. The shear parameter measures the degree of isotropization of a given anisotropic solution . We define the shear parameter, in our case , as

$$r(t)=\frac{HG}{H+2G}.$$
(45)
Using eqs. (42)–(43) we find that

$$r(t)=\frac{\sqrt{t^6+\delta ^2t^4}\delta ^3\delta t^2}{2\sqrt{t^6+\delta ^2t^4}+\delta ^3+\delta t^2}.$$
(46)
By expanding the above expression in Taylor series around $`t=0_{}`$ we have that

$$r(t)=1+\frac{\delta +2}{\delta ^2}t^2+𝒪(t^3).$$
(47)
namely we see that the share parameter grows, a behavior similar to the one discussed in the Bianchi-type I case. This behavior is then not surprising and it is due to the fact that, in our discussion, we did not take into account the string tension corrections to the low-energy action. If string tension corrections are (naively) included the shear parameter is forced to decrease.

In conclusion we discussed the possible inclusion of a pure (Abelian) magnetic field in the low-energy string effective action. We found that, in the absence of any torsion background, a magnetic field and a time-dependent dilaton field can be simultaneously accommodated in Bianchi-type I, II, III, VI-1, VII0 backgrounds. As an example of our considerations we found new exact solutions of the low-energy string effective action in the Bianchi-type III, $`VI_1`$ and Kantowski-Sachs cases. We also discussed the physical properties of the obtained solutions and we argued that they are not qualitatively different from the ones deduced in the Bianchi-type I background .


text:
# References

1. Introduction. During last few years there was a considerable interest in applying the general method of nonlinear realizations to systems with partial breaking of global supersymmetries (PBGS), first of all to the superbranes as a notable example of such systems (see, e.g.,  and refs. therein). On this path one meets two problems. The first one is purely computational. Following the general prescriptions of nonlinear realizations, one is led to include into the coset, alongside with the spontaneously broken translation and supertranslation generators, also the appropriate part of generators of the automorphism group for the given supersymmetry algebra (including those of the Lorentz group). This makes the computations beyond the linearized approximation rather complicated. Moreover, sometimes these additional symmetries which we should take into account at the step of doing the coset routine appear to be explicitly broken at the level of the invariant action (see, e.g., refs. ), with no clear reasons for this. The second, closely related difficulty is lacking of a systematic procedure for constructing the PBGS actions. In all the cases elaborated so far, the PBGS Lagrangians cannot be constructed in a manifestly invariant way from the relevant Cartan forms: under the broken supersymmetry transformations they are shifted by the spinor or $`x`$-derivatives (like the WZNW or Chern-Simons Lagrangians).

In the present note we argue, on several instructive examples, that the automorphism symmetries can be ignored if we are interested only in the equations of motion for the given PBGS system. This radically simplifies the calculations, resulting in rather simple manifestly covariant equations in which all nonlinearities are hidden inside the covariant derivatives.

2. $`N=1,D=4`$ supermembrane and D2-brane. To clarify the main idea of our approach, let us start from the well known systems with partially broken global supersymmetries . Our goal is to get the corresponding superfield equations of motion in terms of the worldvolume superfields starting from the nonlinear realization of the global supersymmetry group.

The supermembrane in $`D=4`$ spontaneously breaks half of four $`N=1,D=4`$ supersymmetries and one translation. Let us split the set of generators of $`N=1D=4`$ Poincaré superalgebra (in the $`d=3`$ notation) into the unbroken $`\{Q_a,P_{ab}\}`$ and broken $`\{S_a,Z\}`$ ones ($`a,b=1,2`$). The $`d=3`$ translation generator $`P_{ab}=P_{ba}`$ together with the generator $`Z`$ form the $`D=4`$ translation generator. The basic anticommutation relations read 111Hereafter, we consider the spontaneously broken supersymmetry algebras modulo possible extra central-charge type terms which should be present in the full algebra of the corresponding Noether currents to evade the no-go theorem of ref.  along the lines of ref. .

$$\{Q_a,Q_b\}=P_{ab},\{Q_a,S_b\}=ϵ_{ab}Z,\{S_a,S_b\}=P_{ab}.$$
(1)
In contrast to our previous considerations , here we prefer to construct the nonlinear realization of the superalgebra (1) itself, ignoring all generators of the automorphisms of (1) (the spontaneously broken as well as unbroken ones), including those of $`D=4`$ Lorentz group $`SO(1,3)`$. Thus, we put all generators into the coset and associate the $`N=1,d=3`$ superspace coordinates $`\{\theta ^a,x^{ab}\}`$ with $`Q_a,P_{ab}`$. The remaining coset parameters are Goldstone superfields, $`\psi ^a\psi ^a(x,\theta ),qq(x,\theta )`$. A coset element $`g`$ is defined by

$$g=e^{x^{ab}P_{ab}}e^{\theta ^aQ_a}e^{qZ}e^{\psi ^aS_a}.$$
(2)
As the next step of the coset formalism, one constructs the Cartan 1-forms

$$g^1dg=\omega _Q^aQ_a+\omega _P^{ab}P_{ab}+\omega _ZZ+\omega _S^aS_a,$$
(3)
$`\omega _Z`$ $`=`$ $`dq+\psi _ad\theta ^a,\omega _P^{ab}=dx^{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{(a}d\theta ^{b)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\psi ^{(a}d\psi ^{b)},`$
$`\omega _Q^a`$ $`=`$ $`d\theta ^a,\omega _S^a=d\psi ^a;.`$ (4)
and define the covariant derivatives

$$𝒟_{ab}=(E^1)_{ab}^{cd}_{cd},𝒟_a=D_a+\frac{1}{2}\psi ^bD_a\psi ^c𝒟_{bc}=D_a+\frac{1}{2}\psi ^b𝒟_a\psi ^c_{bc},$$
(5)
where

$`D_a={\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^b_{ab},\{D_a,D_b\}=_{ab},`$ (6)
$`E_{ab}^{cd}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _a^c\delta _b^d+\delta _a^d\delta _b^c)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\psi ^c_{ab}\psi ^d+\psi ^d_{ab}\psi ^c).`$ (7)
They obey the following algebra

$`[𝒟_{ab},𝒟_{cd}]=𝒟_{ab}\psi ^f𝒟_{cd}\psi ^g𝒟_{fg},`$
$`[𝒟_{ab},𝒟_c]=𝒟_{ab}\psi ^f𝒟_c\psi ^g𝒟_{fg},`$
$`\{𝒟_a,𝒟_b\}=𝒟_{ab}+𝒟_a\psi ^f𝒟_b\psi ^g𝒟_{fg}.`$ (8)
Not all of the above Goldstone superfields $`\{q(x,\theta ),\psi ^a(x,\theta )\}`$ must be treated as independent. Indeed, $`\psi _a`$ appears inside the form $`\omega _Z`$ linearly and so can be covariantly eliminated by the manifestly covariant constraint (inverse Higgs effect )

$$\omega _Z|_{d\theta }=0\psi _a=𝒟_aq,$$
(9)
where $`|_{d\theta }`$ means the ordinary $`d\theta `$-projection of the form. Thus the superfield $`q(x,\theta )`$ is the only essential Goldstone superfield needed to present the partial spontaneous breaking $`N=1,D=4N=1,d=3`$ within the coset scheme.

Now we are ready to put additional, manifestly covariant constraints on the superfield $`q(x,\theta )`$, in order to get dynamical equations. The main idea is to covariantize the “flat” equations of motion. Namely, we simply replace the flat covariant derivatives in the standard equation of motion for the bosonic scalar superfield in $`d=3`$

$$D^aD_aq=0$$
(10)
by the covariant ones (5)

$$𝒟^a𝒟_aq=0.$$
(11)
The equation (11) coincides with the equation of motion of the supermembrane in $`D=4`$ as it was presented in . Thus, we conclude that, at least in this specific case, additional superfields-parameters of the extended coset with all the automorphism symmetry generators included are auxiliary and can be dropped out if we are interested in the equations of motion only.

Actually, in  eq. (11) was deduced, proceeding from the $`D=4`$ Lorentz covariant coset formalism with preserving all initial symmetries. This means that (11), having been now reproduced from the coset involving only the translations and supertranslations generators, possesses the hidden covariance under the full $`D=4`$ Lorentz group. On the other hand, one more automorphism symmetry of the $`N=1,D=4`$ supersymmetry algebra, “$`\gamma _5`$” symmetry, is explicitly broken in eq. (11), and there is no way to keep it. In the $`d=3`$ notation this symmetry is realized as an extra $`SO(2)`$ with respect to which the generators $`Q_a`$ and $`S_b`$ and, respectively, the coset parameters $`\theta ^a,\psi ^a`$ form a 2-vector. This symmetry is spontaneously broken at the level of the transformation laws, with the auxiliary field of $`q(x,\theta )`$ being the relevant Goldstone field. From eq. (11) we conclude that it cannot be preserved even in this spontaneously broken form when $`q`$ is subjected to the dynamical equation: one can preserve the spontaneously broken $`D=4`$ Lorentz symmetry at most. This $`U(1)`$ is explicitly broken in the off-shell PBGS action of ref. , as well as in the corresponding Green-Schwarz action . A similar phenomenon was observed in refs.  for the $`N=(1,0),D=6`$ 3-brane. There, the auxiliary fields of the basic worldvolume $`N=1,d=4`$ Goldstone chiral supermultiplet are the Goldstone fields parameterizing the coset $`SU(2)_A/U(1)_A`$ of the automorphism $`SU(2)_A`$ group of $`N=(1,0),D=6`$ Poincaré superalgebra, and the coset part of $`SU(2)_A`$ is realized as nonlinear shifts of these fields. In the superfield equations of motion of the 3-brane and the corresponding off-shell action this $`SU(2)_A`$ is explicitly broken down to $`U(1)_A`$, though the spontaneously broken $`D=6`$ Lorentz symmetry is still preserved.

As a straightforward application of the idea that the automorphism symmetries are irrelevant when deducing the equations of motion, let us consider the case of the “space-time filling” D2-brane (i.e. having no scalar fields in its worldvolume multiplet the field content of which is that of $`N=1,d=3`$ vector multiplet). The main problem with the description of D-branes within the standard nonlinear realization approach is the lack of the coset generators to which one could relate the gauge fields as the coset parameters 222For the covariant field strengths as Goldstone fields such generators can still be found in the automorphism symmetry algebras .. So we do not know how interpret the gauge fields as coset parameters in this case 333It seems that the existing interpretation of gauge fields as the coset fields  can be generalized to the PBGS case only on the way of non-trivial unification of the gauge group algebra with that of supersymmetry, so that the gauge group transformations appeared in the closure of supersymmetries before any gauge-fixing as a sort of tensorial central charges.. Let us show how these difficulties can be circumvented in the present approach.

The superalgebra we start with is the same algebra (1), but now without the central charge

$$Z=0.$$

The coset element $`g`$ contains only one Goldstone superfield $`\psi ^a`$ which now must be treated as the essential one, and the covariant derivatives coincide with (5). Bearing in mind to end up with the irreducible field content of $`N=1,d=3`$ vector multiplet, we are led to treat $`\psi ^a`$ as the corresponding superfield strength and to find the appropriate covariantization of the flat irreducibility constraint and the equation of motion. In the flat case the $`d=3`$ vector multiplet is represented by a $`N=1`$ spinor superfield strength $`\mu _a`$ subjected to the Bianchi identity :

$$D^a\mu _a=0\left\{\begin{array}{c}D^2\mu _a=_{ab}\mu ^b,\hfill \\ _{ab}D^a\mu ^b=0.\hfill \end{array}\right\}.$$

This leaves in $`\mu _a`$ the first fermionic (Goldstone) component, together with the divergenceless vector $`F_{ab}D_a\mu _b|_{\theta =0}`$ (i.e., just the gauge field strength). The equation of motion reads

$$D^2\mu _a=0.$$
(12)
In accordance with our approach, we propose the following equations which should describe the D2-brane:

$$(a)𝒟^a\psi _a=0,(b)𝒟^2\psi _a=0.$$
(13)
The equation $`(a)`$ is a covariantization of the irreducibility constraint (S0.Ex6) while $`(b)`$ is the covariant equation of motion.

In order to see which kind of dynamics is encoded in (13), we considered it in the bosonic limit. We found that it amounts to the following equations for the vector $`V_{ab}𝒟_a\psi _b|_{\theta =0}`$:

$$\left(_{ac}+V_a^mV_c^n_{mn}\right)V_b^c=0.$$
(14)
One can wonder how these nonlinear but polynomial equations can be related to the nonpolynomial Born-Infeld theory which is just the bosonic core of the superfield D2-brane theory as was explicitly demonstrated in . The trick is to rewrite the parts of the equation (14), respectively antisymmetric and symmetric in the indices $`\{a,b\}`$, as follows:

$`_{ab}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{ab}}{2V^2}}\right)=0,`$ (15)
$`_{ac}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_b^c}{2+V^2}}\right)+_{bc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_a^c}{2+V^2}}\right)=0,`$ (16)
where $`V^2V^{mn}V_{mn}`$. After passing to the “genuine” field strength

$$F^{ab}=\frac{2V^{ab}}{2V^2}_{ab}F^{ab}=0,$$
(17)
the equation of motion (16) takes the familiar Born-Infeld form

$$_{ac}\left(\frac{F_b^c}{\sqrt{1+2F^2}}\right)+_{bc}\left(\frac{F_a^c}{\sqrt{1+2F^2}}\right)=0.$$
(18)
Thus we have proved that the bosonic part of our system (13) indeed coincides with the Born-Infeld equations. One may explicitly show that the full equations (13) are equivalent to the worldvolume superfield equation following from the off-shell D2-brane action given in  (augmented with the Bianchi identity (S0.Ex6)). An indirect proof is based on the fact that (13) is an $`N=1`$ extension of the bosonic $`d=3`$ Born-Infeld equations, such that it possesses one more nonlinearly realized supersymmetry completing the explicit one to $`N=2,d=3`$ superalgebra (1) with $`Z=0`$. On the other hand, the $`N=1,d=3`$ superfield action of  is uniquely specified by requiring it to possess this second supersymmetry. Hence both types of equations should be equivalent.

In closing this Section, it is worth mentioning that the equations (14) which equivalently describe the bosonic Born-Infeld dynamics in $`d=3`$, look much simpler than the standard ones (17), (18).

3. D3-brane. As another interesting application of the proposed approach, we shall consider the space-time filling D3-brane in $`d=4`$. This system amounts to the PBGS pattern $`N=2,d=4N=1,d=4`$, with a nonlinear generalization of $`N=1,d=4`$ vector multiplet as the Goldstone multiplet . The off-shell superfield action for this system and the related equations of motion are known , but the latter have never been derived directly from the coset approach.

Our starting point is the $`N=2,d=4`$ Poincaré superalgebra without central charges:

$$\{Q_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}=2P_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\{S_\alpha ,\overline{S}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}=2P_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}.$$
(19)
Assuming the $`S_\alpha ,\overline{S}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ supersymmetries to be spontaneously broken, we introduce the Goldstone superfields $`\psi ^\alpha (x,\theta ,\overline{\theta }),\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ as the corresponding parameters in the following coset (we use the same notation as in )

$$g=e^{ix^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}P_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}}e^{i\theta ^\alpha Q_\alpha +i\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{Q}^{\dot{\alpha }}}e^{i\psi ^\alpha S_\alpha +i\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{S}^{\dot{\alpha }}}.$$
(20)
With the help of the Cartan forms

$`g^1dg`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}P_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+i\omega _Q^\alpha Q_\alpha +i\overline{\omega }_{Q\dot{\alpha }}\overline{Q}^{\dot{\alpha }}+i\omega _S^\alpha S_\alpha +i\overline{\omega }_{S\dot{\alpha }}\overline{S}^{\dot{\alpha }},`$
$`\omega ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}i\left(\theta ^\alpha d\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}d\theta ^\alpha +\psi ^\alpha d\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}d\psi ^\alpha \right),`$
$`\omega _Q^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\theta ^\alpha ,\overline{\omega }_Q^{\dot{\alpha }}=d\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }},\omega _S^\alpha =d\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\omega }_S^{\dot{\alpha }}=d\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }},`$ (21)
one can define the covariant derivatives

$`𝒟_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(E^1\right)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\beta \dot{\beta }}_{\beta \dot{\beta }},`$
$`𝒟_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`D_\alpha i\left(\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}D_\alpha \psi ^\beta +\psi ^\beta D_\alpha \overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}\right)𝒟_{\beta \dot{\beta }},`$
$`\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}i\left(\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\psi ^\beta +\psi ^\beta \overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}\right)𝒟_{\beta \dot{\beta }},`$ (22)
where

$$E_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\beta \dot{\beta }}=\delta _\alpha ^\beta \delta _{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}i\psi ^\beta _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}i\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\psi ^\beta ,$$
(23)
and the flat covariant derivatives are defined as follows

$$D_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }i\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}}+i\theta ^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}.$$
(24)
Now we are ready to write the covariant version of the constraints on $`\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ which define the superbrane generalization of $`N=1,d=4`$ vector multiplet, together with the covariant equations of motion for this system.

As is well-known , the $`N=1,d=4`$ vector multiplet is described by a chiral $`N=1`$ field strength $`W_\alpha `$,

$$\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}W_\alpha =0,D_\alpha \overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}=0,$$
(25)
which satisfies the irreducibility constraint (Bianchi identity)

$$D^\alpha W_\alpha +\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(26)
The free equations of motion for the vector multiplet read

$$D^\alpha W_\alpha \overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(27)
It was shown in  that the chirality constraints (25) can be directly covariantized

$$\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}\psi _\alpha =0,𝒟_\alpha \overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(28)
These conditions are compatible with the algebra of the covariant derivatives (S0.Ex9). This algebra, with the constraints (28) taken into account, reads

$`\{𝒟_\alpha ,𝒟_\beta \}=\{\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }},\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\beta }}\}=0,`$
$`\{𝒟_\alpha ,\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\beta }}\}=2i𝒟_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}2i(𝒟_\alpha \psi ^\gamma \overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\beta }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\gamma }})𝒟_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }},`$
$`\{𝒟_\alpha ,𝒟_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}\}=2i(𝒟_\alpha \psi ^\beta 𝒟_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }})𝒟_{\beta \dot{\beta }}.`$ (29)
The first two relations in (29) guarantee the consistency of the above nonlinear version of $`N=1,d=4`$ chirality. They also imply, like in the flat case,

$$(𝒟)^3=(\overline{𝒟})^3=0.$$
(30)
The second flat irreducibility constraint, eq. (26), is not so simple to covariantize. The straightforward generalization of (26),

$$𝒟^\alpha \psi _\alpha +\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}=0,$$
(31)
is contradictory. Let us apply the square $`(𝒟)^2`$ to the left-hand side of (31). When hitting the first term in the sum, it yields zero in virtue of the property (30). However, it is not zero on the second term. To compensate for the resulting non-vanishing terms, and thus to achieve compatibility with the algebra (29) and its corollaries (30), one should modify (31) by some higher-order coorrections .

Let us argue that the constraints (26) together with the equations of motion (27) can be straightforwardly covariantized as

$$𝒟^\alpha \psi _\alpha =0,\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(32)
Firstly, we note that no difficulties of the above kind related to the compatibility with the algebra (29) arise on the shell of eqs. (32). As a consequence of (32) and the first two relations in (29) we get

$$𝒟^2\psi _\alpha =0,\overline{𝒟}^2\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(33)
This set is a nonlinear version of the well-known reality condition and the equation of motion for the auxiliary field of vector multiplet. Then, applying, e.g., $`𝒟_\alpha `$ to the second equation in (32) and making use of the chirality condition (28), we obtain the nonlinear version of the equation of motion for photino

$$𝒟_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}(𝒟_\alpha \psi ^\gamma \overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\gamma }})𝒟_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(34)
Acting on this equation by one more $`𝒟_\alpha `$ and taking advantage of the equations (33), we obtain:

$$[𝒟^\alpha ,𝒟_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}𝒟_\alpha \psi ^\gamma \{𝒟^\alpha ,\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\gamma }}𝒟_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}𝒟_\alpha \psi ^\gamma \overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\gamma }}[𝒟^\alpha ,𝒟_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}]\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(35)
After substituting the explicit expressions for the (anti)commutators from (29), we observe that (35) is satisfied identically, i.e. it does not imply any further restrictions on $`\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$. It can be also explicitly checked, in a few lowest orders in $`\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, that the higher-order corrections to (31) found in  are vanishing on the shell of eqs. (32).

Thus the full set of equations describing the dynamics of the D3-brane supposedly consists of the generalized chirality constraint (28) and the equations (32). To prove its equivalence to the $`N=1`$ superfield description of D3-brane proposed in , recall that the latter is the $`N=1`$ supersymmetrization  of the $`d=4`$ Born-Infeld action with one extra nonlinearly realized $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. So, let us consider the bosonic part of the proposed set of equations. Our superfields $`\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$ contain the following bosonic components:

$$V^{\alpha \beta }=V^{\beta \alpha }𝒟^\alpha \psi ^\beta |_{\theta =0},\overline{V}^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=\overline{V}^{\dot{\beta }\dot{\alpha }}\overline{𝒟}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}|_{\theta =0},$$
(36)
which, owing to (32), obey the following simple equations

$$_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}V^{\alpha \beta }V_\alpha ^\gamma \overline{V}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\gamma }}_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}V^{\alpha \beta }=0,_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{V}^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}V_\alpha ^\gamma \overline{V}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\gamma }}_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}\overline{V}^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=0.$$
(37)
Like in the D2-brane case, in the equations (37) nothing reminds us of the Born-Infeld equations. Nevertheless, it is possible to rewrite these equations in the standard Born-Infeld form.

The first step is to rewrite eqs.(37) as

$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V^2\overline{V}{}_{}{}^{2})_{\beta \dot{\alpha }}V_\alpha ^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{V}{}_{}{}^{2}V_{\alpha }^{\beta }_{\beta \dot{\alpha }}V^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{V}{}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}^{\dot{\beta }}_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^{}V^2=0,`$ (38)
$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V^2\overline{V}{}_{}{}^{2})_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\overline{V}{}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}^{\dot{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V^2\overline{V}{}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}^{\dot{\beta }}_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^{}\overline{V}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_\alpha ^\beta _{\dot{\alpha }\beta }\overline{V}{}_{}{}^{2}=0.`$ (39)
After some algebra, one can bring them into the following equivalent form

$$_{\beta \dot{\alpha }}\left(fV_\alpha ^\beta \right)_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\left(\overline{f}\overline{V}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}\right)=0,_{\beta \dot{\alpha }}\left(gV_\alpha ^\beta \right)+_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\left(\overline{g}\overline{V}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}\right)=0,$$
(40)
where

$$f=\frac{\overline{V}{}_{}{}^{2}2}{1\frac{1}{4}V^2\overline{V}^2},g=\frac{\overline{V}{}_{}{}^{2}+2}{1\frac{1}{4}V^2\overline{V}^2}.$$
(41)
After introducing the “genuine” field strengths

$$F_\alpha ^\beta \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}fV_\alpha ^\beta ,\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\overline{f}\overline{V}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }},$$
(42)
first of eqs. (40) is recognized as the Bianchi identity

$$_{\beta \dot{\alpha }}F_\alpha ^\beta _{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}=0,$$
(43)
while the second one acquires the familiar form of the Born-Infeld equation

$`_{\beta \dot{\alpha }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+F^2\overline{F}^2}{\sqrt{(F^2\overline{F}{}_{}{}^{2})^22(F^2+\overline{F}{}_{}{}^{2})+1}}}F_\alpha ^\beta \right)`$
$`+_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1F^2+\overline{F}^2}{\sqrt{(F^2\overline{F}{}_{}{}^{2})^22(F^2+\overline{F}{}_{}{}^{2})+1}}}\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}\right)=0.`$ (44)
Thus, in this new basis the action for our bosonic system is the Born-Infeld action:

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{(F^2\overline{F}{}_{}{}^{2})^22(F^2+\overline{F}{}_{}{}^{2})+1}.$$
(45)
Now the equivalence of the system (32) to the equations corresponding to the action of ref. , like in the D2-brane case, can be established proceeding from the following two arguments: (i) It is $`N=1`$ supersymmetrization of the $`d=4`$ Born-Infeld equations; (ii) It possesses the second hidden nonlinearly realized supersymmetry lifting $`N=1,d=4`$ to $`N=2,d=4`$. The action given in  provides the unique extension of the $`d=4`$ Born-Infeld action with both these requirements satisfied. Hence, both representations should be equivalent to each other.

Note that at the full superfield level the redefinition (42) should correspond to passing from the Goldstone fermions $`\psi _\alpha `$, $`\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ which have the simple transformation properties in the nonlinear realization of $`N=1,d=4`$ supersymmetry but obey the nonlinear irreducibility constraints, to the ordinary Maxwell superfield strength $`W_\alpha ,\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ defined by eqs. (25), (26). The nonlinear action in  was written just in terms of this latter object. The equivalent form (32) of the equations of motion and Bianchi identity is advantageous in that it is manifestly covariant under the second (hidden) supersymmetry, being constructed out of the covariant objects.

4. Conclusions. In this Letter we demonstrated that in many cases one can simplify the analysis of the equations of motion which follow from the coset approach by taking no account of the automorphism group at all. We showed that the equations of motion for the $`N=1,D=4`$ supermembrane, D2- and D3-branes in a flat background have a very simple form when written in terms of Goldstone superfields of nonlinear realizations and the corresponding nonlinear covariant derivatives. As a by-product, we got a new simple form for the $`d=3`$ and $`d=4`$ Born-Infeld theory equations of motion combined with the appropriate Bianchi identities. The remarkable property of this representation is that it involves only a third order nonlinearity in the gauge field strength.

Note that the idea to use the geometric and symmetry principles to derive the dynamical equations is not new, of course. For instance, the completely integrable $`d=2`$ equations admit the geometrical interpretation as the vanishing of some curvatures. In the superembedding approach (see  and refs. therein) the equations of motion for superbranes in a number of important cases amount to the so-called “geometro-dynamical” constraint which, in the PBGS language, is just a kind of the inverse Higgs constraints. For instance, this applies to the $`N=1,D=10`$ 5-brane . In this case the condition like (9), besides eliminating the Goldstone fermion superfield in terms of the appropriate analog of the $`d=3`$ superfield $`q`$ ($`d=6`$ hypermultiplet superfield), also yields the equation of motion for the latter 444It is curious that this equation, in accord with the general reasoning of the present work, proved to be finally written in terms of the covariant quantities of nonlinear realization of the pure $`N=1,D=10`$ Poincaré superalgebra, despite the fact that we started in  from the coset of the extended supergroup involving $`D=10`$ Lorentz group.. However, as we saw in the above examples, in other interesting cases the inverse Higgs (or geometro-dynamical) constraints do not imply any dynamics which, however, can still be implemented in a manifestly covariant way using the approach proposed here.

It still remains to fully understand why in the PBGS scheme the dynamical worldvolume superfield equations are not sensitive to the presence or absence of the automorphism generators in the initial coset construction. This is in contrast with the case of purely bosonic $`p`$-branes. For the self-consistent description of them in terms of nonlinear realizations one should necessarily make use of the cosets of the full target Minkowski space Poincaré group including the Lorentz (automorphism) part of the latter . A possible explanation of this apparent disagreement is that the Goldstone fermion superfields or Goldstone superfields associated with the central charges (and/or with the transverse components of the full momenta) already accommodate the Lorentz and other automorphism groups Goldstone fields. These come out as component fields in the $`\theta `$ -expansion of the Goldstone superfields. So the automorphism groups Goldstone fields are implicitly present in the superbrane superfield equations of motion.

The most interesting practical application of the approach exemplified here is the possibility to construct, more or less straightforwardly, the equations for the $`N=4`$ and $`N=8`$ supersymmetric Born-Infeld theory.This work is in progress now .

Acknowledgements. This work was supported in part by the Fondo Affari Internazionali Convenzione Particellare INFN-JINR, grants RFBR-CNRS 98-02-22034, RFBR 99-02-18417, INTAS-96-0538, INTAS-96-0308 and NATO Grant PST.CLG 974874.