text:
# Spin transport in interacting quantum wires and carbon nanotubes

\[

## Abstract

We present a general formulation of spin-dependent transport through a clean one-dimensional interacting quantum wire or carbon nanotube, connected to non-collinear ferromagnets via tunnel junctions. We show that the low energy description of each junction is given by a conformally-invariant boundary condition representing exchange coupling, in addition to a pair of electron tunneling operators. The effects of the exchange coupling are strongly enhanced by interactions, leading to a dramatic suppression of spin accumulation. This is a direct signature of spin-charge separation in a Luttinger liquid. Furthermore, we demonstrate that magnetic polarization can lead to oscillations in the non-linear current-voltage relation. This phenomena is a surprising purely nonequilibrium effect due to backscattering interactions, which are thus dangerously marginally irrelevant in the repulsively-interacting Luttinger liquid.

\]

Recent studies on metal-ferromagnet hybrid systems have revealed new and interesting physics due to the interplay between the electronic charge and spin , e.g., the giant magnetoresistance effect . Following the initial spin-injection proposal , the work of Johnson and Silsbee  and subsequent advances have opened the way for the field of spintronics, where the electron spin is the central element for information storage and transport. Spin-dependent transport plays an important role in quantum computation proposals, and has already led to new technological applications. In this context, a detailed understanding of transport through ferromagnetic-normal-ferromagnetic devices is both of fundamental and technological interest. In such structures, the current-voltage relation is predicted to sensitively depend on the relative angle $`\theta `$ between the magnetization directions of the ferromagnets (FMs).

Current theoretical models are based on Fermi liquid theory, thereby ignoring the effect of interactions in the metal. As the inevitable miniaturization of spin-dependent devices proceeds, however, at least the interconnects must ultimately reach the one-dimensional (1D) quantum limit, in which Fermi liquid theory breaks down. This theoretically expected change from Fermi liquid to Luttinger liquid (LL) behavior drastically alters transport phenomena, as has recently been verified in experiments on charge conduction in carbon nanotubes, which are nearly ideal 1D quantum wires (QWs). Despite these developments, spin injection into a LL has received surprisingly little attention . In this paper, we present a general low-energy theory for spin transport in a LL, which directly applies to nanotubes and semiconductor QWs . We assume, as expected theoretically and recently observed experimentally for carbon nanotubes, that spin-orbit coupling in the LL is negligible. Its inclusion is, however, straightforward.

Our analysis shows that spin transport in LLs is qualitatively different both from charge transport in LLs and from Fermi liquid spin transport. We focus for concrete results on the case of an end-contacted quantum wire, and assume that the distance $`L`$ between contacts is sufficiently long, $`\mathrm{max}(V,T)v/L`$, to ensure an incoherent stepwise transport mechanism through the tunnel barriers between each FM and the QW. (Here $`v`$ is the Fermi velocity, and we put $`e=k_B=\mathrm{}=1`$.) A complete analytic solution of this problem is contained in Eqs. (2) and (15) to (17). In contrast to charge transport, we find that spin conduction occurs not only through electron transfer but also exchange. This exchange effectively gives rise to a modification of the boundary conditions at the end of the LL, e.g., for the left contact,

$$\stackrel{}{J}_R=(\mathrm{\Theta })\stackrel{}{J}_L+\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{tunnel}},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{J}_{L/R}`$ is the left/right moving spin current into/out of the contact, and $`\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{tunnel}}`$ represents the effect of electron transfer, see Eq. (15). The effect of exchange coupling is given by the one-parameter $`SO(3)`$ matrix $`(\mathrm{\Theta })=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }=_\lambda \widehat{m}_\lambda ϵ_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$, and $`\widehat{m}`$ is a unit vector in the direction of magnetization of the FM. Physically, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ represents the angle an incident spin in the LL precesses due to exchange interaction with the FM. Due to spin-charge separation in the LL, the exchange contribution is not suppressed by the orthogonality catastrophe affecting the tunneling current, and therefore dominates the physics in many situations. This enhancement of the exchange current does not occur in a Fermi liquid, and its observation would provide a direct experimental signature of electron fractionalization. In addition to the novel physics arising at the contact, we find that a long ballistic QW exhibits a bulk precession of the magnetization,

$$v_x\stackrel{}{M}+_t\stackrel{}{J}=b\stackrel{}{M}\times \stackrel{}{J},$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{M}=\stackrel{}{J}_R+\stackrel{}{J}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{J}_R\stackrel{}{J}_L`$ are the local magnetization and current in the QW, respectively. Eq. (2) leads to oscillations in the nonlinear current-voltage relation. Remarkably, the latter is a purely non-equilibrium effect that arises from a marginally irrelevant backscattering interaction in the LL. The detailed character of these oscillations is also influenced by interactions.

We now turn to the derivation of these results. In the incoherent limit, we may consider each contact separately, as an initial system composed of two decoupled pieces, $`H_0=H_{FM}+H_{QW}`$. The FM $`(x<0)`$, described by $`H_{FM}`$, is polarized along direction $`\widehat{m}`$, while the $`SU(2)`$ invariant QW ($`x>0`$) is described by $`H_{QW}`$. The $`SU(2)`$ invariance guarantees the existence of a continuity equation for spin density and current. At time $`t\mathrm{}`$, each half is assumed at equilibrium at its own chemical potential, $`\mu _{FM}`$ and $`\mu _{QW}`$, and with a spin chemical potential $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ (see below) in the QW. We are interested in the steady state achieved at $`t=0`$, long after the tunneling perturbation has been adiabatically turned on, $`H(t)=H_0+e^{\delta t}H^{}`$ ($`\delta 0^+`$). The calculation is non-trivial primarily due to its non-equilibrium nature: the system evolves according to $`H(t)`$ while the initial states are distributed according to $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_0)`$. Consider

$$H^{}=F^{}W\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}W^{}F^{},$$
(3)
where $`F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are spin-$`1/2`$ Fermion annihilation operators at $`x=0`$ for the FM and the QW, respectively. Employing the projection operators $`\widehat{u}_s=(1\pm \widehat{m}\stackrel{}{\sigma })/2`$, the $`2\times 2`$ tunneling matrix $`W`$ takes the form $`W=_st_s\widehat{u}_s`$, with spin-dependent transmission coefficients $`t_s`$ for spin quantization axis parallel to $`\widehat{m}`$. The junction is then characterized by the conductance $`G=G_{}+G_{}`$ and the polarization $`P=(G_{}G_{})/G`$, where $`G_,=(e^2/h)|t_,|^2`$ are the spin conductances .

From Eq. (3) and the spin continuity equation, the tunneling spin current across the junction is $`\stackrel{}{J}=i\left(F^{}W\stackrel{}{\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }W^{}F^{}\right)/2`$. By defining $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0=H_0+\mu _{FM}N_{FM}+\mu _{QW}N_{QW}+\stackrel{}{h}\stackrel{}{S}_{QW}`$, the standard perturbative result can be rewritten as

$`\stackrel{}{J}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \lambda }{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑te^{\delta t}\left(W\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)_{\alpha \beta }\left(U^{}(t)W^{}\right)_{\gamma \lambda }`$ (5)
$`\times [F_\alpha ^{}(0)\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{}(0),\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}(t)F_\lambda ^{}(t)]_{\stackrel{~}{H}_0}.`$
Thereby an intrinsically non-equilibrium expectation value is expressed in terms of an equilibrium average using the shifted Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$, where the non-equilibrium nature of the problem is fully encoded in the time dependent unitary matrix $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}[i(V+\stackrel{}{h}\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2)t]`$, with $`V=\mu _{QW}\mu _{FM}`$. A formula similar to Eq. (5) can easily be written down for the charge current, $`I=i(F^{}W\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}W^{}F^{})`$. Thus both charge and spin current can be calculated using equilibrium correlation functions.

To proceed, we specify the Hamiltonians $`H_{FM}`$ and $`H_{QW}`$. For energies well below the electronic bandwidth $`D`$, the $`F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ equilibrium correlators are identical for $`H_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$, and moreover a non-interacting Fermi liquid model with constant density of states (DOS) applies to the leads. Because the lead couples to the QW only at $`x=0`$, the difference in DOS for majority and minority spin carriers can be absorbed in a spatial rescaling of the Fermi fields of the FM and a suitable redefinition of the transmission coefficients ($`t_s`$). Then

$$H_{FM}=i_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑xf^{}\tau ^z_xf^{},$$
(6)
where the spinor $`f=f_{b\beta }`$ is indexed by $`b=(R,L)`$, describing right- and left-moving modes of the FM, and by $`\beta =(,)`$ for the spin, with the boundary condition $`f_R(0)=f_L(0)`$. Here the Pauli matrix $`\tau ^z`$ acts in the $`R/L`$ space. Putting $`F=f(0)`$, we see that $`F`$ has $`SU(2)`$ invariant correlation functions. The low-energy description of the QW is an interacting LL model,

$$H_{QW}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\left\{i\psi ^{}v\tau ^z_x\psi ^{}+u\left(\psi ^{}\psi ^{}\right)^2\right\},$$
(7)
where $`\psi _R(0)=\psi _L(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi (0)`$. Only the forward-scattering interaction $`u`$ is kept in Eq. (7). Alternatively, the exponent $`\alpha >0`$ for tunneling into the end of the LL ($`x=0`$) serves to measure the interaction strength .

The $`SU(2)`$ invariance of Eqs. (6) and (7) implies

$`[F_\alpha ^{}(0)\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{}(0),\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{}(t)F_\lambda ^{}(t)]_{\stackrel{~}{H}_0}\theta (t)=\delta _{\alpha \lambda }\delta _{\beta \gamma }iC(t),`$

where $`C(t)`$ is the retarded Green’s function of the operator $`F_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ (the choice of spin components is arbitrary). From Eq. (5) and the corresponding expression for $`I`$, it is then straightforward to obtain

$`\stackrel{}{J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}[(P\widehat{m}+s\widehat{h})\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{C}(V+hs/2+i\delta )`$ (9)
$`Ps\widehat{m}\times \widehat{h}\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{C}(V+hs/2+i\delta )],`$
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`G{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}(1+Ps\widehat{m}\widehat{h})\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{C}(V+hs/2+i\delta ),`$ (10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}(V)=𝑑tC(t)e^{iVt}`$. The terms involving

$`_\alpha (V,T)G\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{C}(V+i\delta )`$ (11)
$`=GT(T/D)^\alpha \mathrm{sinh}(V/2T)\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2\pi T}}\right)\right|^2`$ (12)
have a simple interpretation in terms of tunneling via Fermi’s golden rule, as can be seen from the spectral representation of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. However, the appearance of $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in Eq. (9) indicates the presence of a physical process other than tunneling. It can be shown  that it corresponds to a virtual process in which an electron near the Fermi energy in the QW hops into a state of the FM (which could be far from the Fermi energy) and hops back, thereby generating an exchange coupling. We thus include it from the start, $`HH_0+H^{}+H^{\prime \prime }`$, with

$$H^{\prime \prime }=K\widehat{m}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}/2.$$
(13)
Since the FM possesses a non-vanishing average magnetization, the spin operator in the FM may be replaced by this average to leading approximation.

It is helpful to view both $`H^{}`$ and $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ in a renormalization group (RG) framework, as perturbations to a decoupled fixed point described by $`H_0`$. Standard arguments give the scaling dimension of both $`t_s`$ and $`K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{t_s}=1+\alpha /2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K=1`$. The scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ is not renormalized due to spin-charge separation in the QW. A simple calculation gives the RG scaling equations

$`_{\mathrm{}}|t_s|^2(\mathrm{})=\alpha |t_s|^2,_{\mathrm{}}K(\mathrm{})=c\left(|t_{}|^2|t_{}|^2\right),`$

where $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{ln}(D/E)`$, and $`c`$ is a non-universal constant. Following the RG flow from the ultraviolet cutoff $`D`$ down to energy $`E\mathrm{max}(T,V)D`$, we find $`|t_s|^2(E)=|t_s|^2(E/D)^\alpha `$, and

$`K(E)=K+\alpha ^1cGP[1(E/D)^\alpha ]|t_s|^2(E).`$

Therefore the tunneling spin current is much smaller than the exchange contribution. Neglecting the tunneling contribution completely, one still obtains a $`T`$-independent exchange spin current as $`T0`$.

This fact can be understood from a simple analogy to the Andreev current through a ballistic superconductor-normal-superconductor (SNS) junction . Let us consider a LL connected to two insulating FMs at $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$, with $`\widehat{m}\times \widehat{m}^{}0`$. This is an equilibrium situation, which can be modeled using Eq. (7) for the LL and two copies of Eq. (13) for the contacts to the FMs. The exchange interaction operates entirely within the spin sector of the LL due to spin-charge separation. Since the charge sector is decoupled, we are free to consider it at the non-interacting point, $`u=0`$. Then the resulting fictitious charge boson and the physical spin boson can be combined and refermionized into a spin-ful Dirac fermion $`\eta `$. Choosing arbitrary quantization axes $`\widehat{m}=\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{m}^{}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\widehat{x}+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\widehat{y}`$, it is instructive to perform the particle-hole transformation $`\eta _{}\eta _{}^{}`$. This yields the Hamiltonian

$$H_\eta =iv_0^L𝑑x\eta ^{}\tau ^z_x\eta ^{}\mathrm{Re}[K\mathrm{\Delta }(0)+K^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(L)e^{i\theta }],$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\eta _{}(x)\eta _{}(x)`$. Equation (14) describes a ballistic SNS junction, and for phase twist $`0<\theta <2\pi `$ between the superconductors, supports an equilibrium current due to Andreev reflection. Since the Andreev current is $`v\eta ^{}\tau ^z\eta ^{}`$, the original FM-LL-FM device indeed has a non-zero spin current $`J_z`$. The analogy to a SNS junction also demonstrates that this current does not rely upon the incoherence of the two contacts.

A more general perspective on the exchange coupling can be gained by viewing the low-energy physics entirely in terms of boundary operators and boundary conditions . For that purpose, we may make an arbitrary choice of short-scale physics, and let the exchange coupling act on right-movers slightly away from the junction. In this case, using the boundary condition $`\psi _L(0)=\psi _R(0)`$, the equations of motion for the spin currents can be integrated over the junction region to give the steady-state relation $`\stackrel{}{J}_R(0^+)=(\mathrm{\Theta })\stackrel{}{J}_L(0^+)`$ (the brackets denoting expectation values are omitted henceforth). The parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }K/v`$ ultimately defines the “exchange coupling constant” of the low-energy theory. In principle, since the boundary exchange operator is exactly marginal, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ need not be small. Then the “bulk” spin currents are $`\stackrel{}{J}_L=\stackrel{}{J}_L(0^+)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}_R=\stackrel{}{J}_R(0^+)+\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{tunnel}}`$, and we obtain Eq. (1), with the tunneling spin current

$$\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{tunnel}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{s}{}(P\widehat{m}+s\widehat{h})_\alpha (V+hs/2,T).$$
(15)
The term proportional to $`\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in Eq. (9) has been dropped, as its physical effects are included via the $`SO(3)`$ rotation $``$. Since the magnetization far from the contact is $`\stackrel{}{M}=\chi \stackrel{}{h}`$ with the LL spin susceptibility $`\chi `$, one can then compute the spin current $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ for arbitrary exchange coupling $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. We arrive at the general result

$$\stackrel{}{J}=S\chi \stackrel{}{h}+(1S)\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{tunnel}},$$
(16)
where $`S=(1)/(+1)`$ is a real antisymmetric matrix. Similarly, the charge current is

$$I=\underset{s}{}(1+s\widehat{m}\widehat{h})_\alpha (V+hs/2,T).$$
(17)
From Eqs. (16) and (17), by exploiting spin and charge current conservation in order to obtain $`\mu _{QW}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{h}`$, one can then compute all transport properties in a given circuit for arbitrary parameters .

We now specialize to a FM-LL-FM device with identical contacts at $`T=0`$ and applied voltage $`V`$ within $`v/LVD`$. For algebraic simplicity, we require $`P^2(1+\alpha )^2`$. For a tunneling contact, one expects $`\mathrm{\Theta }1`$ , and Eq. (16) then yields

$`\stackrel{}{J}=(\mathrm{\Theta }\chi /2)\widehat{m}\times \stackrel{}{h}+\stackrel{}{J}_{\mathrm{tunnel}}.`$

Under these conditions, it is straightforward to obtain the $`\theta `$-dependent FM-LL-FM current-voltage relation,

$$I(\theta )=\frac{GV}{2}(V/D)^\alpha \left(1P^2\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)}{\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)+Y_\alpha (V)}\right),$$
(18)
where $`Y_\alpha (V)=1+(\mathrm{\Theta }\chi /2)^2(1+\alpha )^2(V/D)^{2\alpha }`$. For $`\alpha 0`$, this reproduces the result of Ref. . Notably, unless the magnetizations of the FMs are anti-parallel ($`\theta =\pi `$) or the exchange coupling vanishes ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$), the spin accumulation effect, in which the current is reduced due to pile-up of spin in the QW, is strongly suppressed by the voltage dependence of $`Y_\alpha `$. Physically, this suppression is caused by the exchange coupling which is much more efficient in relaxing the injected spin polarization compared to the tunneling current.

Finally, we turn to backscattering electron-electron interactions of the form

$$H_b=b_0^L𝑑x\stackrel{}{J}_L\stackrel{}{J}_R.$$
(19)
For a carbon nanotube, with the lattice spacing $`a`$ and the tube radius $`R`$, one may estimate $`bae^2/R`$ . Since $`H_b`$ is marginally irrelevant in a single-channel QW, it is usually neglected in the LL model (7). Nevertheless, as is shown here, dynamical effects caused by (19) can be important. The equations of motion away from the contacts give Eq. (2) and $`v_x\stackrel{}{J}+_t\stackrel{}{M}=0`$. In the steady state, we have conserved spin current $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, and a bulk precession equation for $`\stackrel{}{M}`$. Since $`\stackrel{}{M}=\chi \stackrel{}{h}`$, the vector $`\widehat{h}`$ must then precess around $`\stackrel{}{J}`$.

To get sizeable consequences, detailed analysis  shows that it is essential to have small exchange couplings. For simplicity, we put $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ below. For the FM-LL-FM device,

$$\widehat{h}(0)\widehat{h}(L)=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ),\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =bJL/v.$$
(20)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi L`$, precession will then always be significant for a sufficiently long QW. The computation of $`\stackrel{}{h}(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{h}(L)`$ leads to the self-consistency equation

$$(1x^2)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi x}{\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)}\frac{V}{\mathrm{\Delta }V}(V/D)^\alpha \right)=\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2),$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=8\pi v/[GPbL\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)]`$. Here solutions $`x=x_n`$ ($`n0`$) in the interval $`0x\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$ have to be found. The current through the device is then

$$I_n(V)=\frac{GV}{2}(V/D)^\alpha (1P^2[1x_n^2(V)]).$$
(22)
The solution $`I_n`$ corresponding to $`n`$ full precession periods exists only for voltages $`V>V_nD[\mathrm{\Delta }V/D]^{1/(1+\alpha )}n^{1/(1+\alpha )}`$. Using typical parameters appropriate for a $`1\mu `$m long single-wall nanotube, one finds $`V_10.1`$ to 1 V. In general, the current-voltage relation could then be multi-valued, where in the regime $`V_n<V<V_{n+1}`$, the solution $`I_n(V)`$ is expected to be realized. Hence the current-voltage relation becomes oscillatory, with sawtooth-like oscillations. The observation of several periods could provide a direct and accurate measurement of $`\alpha `$ via the $`V_n`$.

To conclude, we have presented a general formalism for spin-dependent transport through interacting 1D conductors. An experimental check of the theory should be possible by measuring the current-voltage relation for a ferromagnet-nanotube-ferromagnet device. The approach is general enough to apply to numerous other problems. Several interesting extensions currently under investigation are the description of bulk-contacted wires, inclusion of the subband degree of freedom of single-wall nanotubes, LL to LL contacts, and the ballistic–diffusive crossover potentially relevant for multi-wall nanotubes.

We thank Gerrit Bauer for helpful discussions. Financial support was provided by the NSF CAREER program under Grant NSF-DMR-9985255, the NSF grant PHY-94-07194, and by the DFG under the Gerhard-Hess and the Heisenberg program.

$``$ Present address: Fakultät für Physik, Universität Freiburg, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany


format: text

text:
# CERN-TH/2000-092March 2000 RADIATIVE HIGGS-SECTOR CP VIOLATION IN THE MSSM

## Abstract

We briefly review the phenomenological implications of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with explicit radiative breaking of CP invariance in the Higgs sector for the LEP2 and Tevatron colliders.

It has recently been shown  that the tree-level CP invariance of the MSSM Higgs potential can sizeably be broken at the one-loop level by large soft CP-violating trilinear couplings of the Higgs bosons to stop and sbottom squarks. Several recent studies  have been devoted to analyze in more detail the effective Higgs potential of the MSSM with explicit radiative breaking of CP invariance. We shall briefly review the main phenomenological implications of this rather rich and very predictive theoretical framework of the MSSM for the LEP2 and Tevatron colliders.

In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the one-loop CP-violating effective potential of the MSSM is given by

$$_V=_V^0+\frac{3}{32\pi ^2}\underset{q=t,b}{}\left[\underset{i=1,2}{}\stackrel{~}{m}_{q_i}^4\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{q_i}^2}{Q^2}\frac{3}{2}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\overline{m}_q^4\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{m}_q^2}{Q^2}\frac{3}{2}\right)\right],$$
(1)
where $`_V^0`$ is the tree-level Lagrangian of the MSSM Higgs potential, and $`\overline{m}_q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{q_i}`$ are the field-dependent quark and squark masses of the third generation. Here, we adopt the notation of Refs. . The minimization of the CP-violating effective potential differs from that in the CP-conserving case by the presence of a non-trivial CP-odd tadpole condition  of the would-be CP-odd scalar $`a`$. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the CP-odd tadpole condition reads

$`T_A=v\mathrm{Im}(m_{12}^2e^{i\xi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=t,b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{2q}}{s_\beta }}\mathrm{Im}h_1^q\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2B_0^{\mathrm{fin}}(0,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2),`$ (2)
where $`t_\beta =s_\beta /c_\beta =v_2/v_1`$, $`s_{2q}=2\mathrm{sin}\theta _q\mathrm{cos}\theta _q`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2`$, $`h_1^t=m_t\mu ^{}e^{i\delta _t}/(s_\beta v)`$, $`h_1^b=m_bA_b^{}e^{i\delta _b}/(c_\beta v)`$, $`\delta _{t(b)}=\mathrm{arg}[A_{t(b)}\mu ^{}t_\beta (1/t_\beta )]`$ and

$$B_0^{\mathrm{fin}}(0,m_1^2,m_2^2)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_1m_2}{Q^2}\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{m_1^2m_2^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_2}{m_1}\right).$$
(3)
Furthermore, $`\mu `$ and $`m_{12}^2`$ are respectively the SUSY and soft SUSY-breaking Higgs-mixing terms, $`A_{t,b}`$ are the soft SUSY-breaking Yukawa couplings, and $`\theta _q`$ is the mixing angle between the mass and weak squark eigenstates.

To one-loop order, CP violation is introduced into the MSSM Higgs potential through the complex parameters $`\mu `$ and $`A_{t,b}`$. The CP-violating terms are proportional to the rephasing invariant combination: $`\mathrm{Im}(m_{12}^2A_{t,b}\mu )`$. From this last expression, it is clear that only the relative phase between $`\mu A_{t,b}`$ and $`m_{12}^2`$ plays a role. Therefore, a good phase convention is to define $`m_{12}^2`$ to be real. This can always be achieved by a global U(1) rotation. As a result, the relative phase $`\xi `$ between the two Higgs vacuum expectation values $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ vanishes at the tree level. The phase choice $`\xi =0`$ can be preserved order by order in perturbation theory by a corresponding choice of the counter-term of $`\mathrm{Im}m_{12}^2`$, exactly as is given in Eq. (2). In fact, this perturbative resetting of the phase $`\xi `$ to zero is equivalent to the general requirement that within the effective-potential formalism, $`v_1`$, $`\mathrm{Re}v_2=|v_2|\mathrm{cos}\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{Im}v_2=|v_2|\mathrm{sin}\xi `$ do not receive finite radiative shifts in higher orders other than those due to Higgs wave-function renormalization. The latter approach is also consistent with the one followed in the CP-conserving studies.

It is known that the MSSM faces the difficulty of explaining naturally the apparent absence of electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the neutron and electron. Several suggestions have been made to suppress the SUSY contributions to electron and neutron EDMs, at a level just below their present experimental upper limits. Apart from the obvious choice of suppressing the new CP-violating phases of the theory to the $`10^3`$ level, a more phenomenologically appealing possibility is to make the first two generations of scalar fermions as heavy as few TeV, but keep the soft-breaking mass parameters of the third generation relatively small, e.g. 0.5–0.7 TeV. An interesting alternative is to arrange for partial cancellations among the different EDM contributions either at the short-distance level or the non-perturbative long-distance one.

In addition to the one-loop EDM contributions of the first two generations, one may have to worry that third-generation squarks do not induce observable effects on the electron and neutron EDMs through the three-gluon operator , through the effective coupling of the ‘CP-odd’ Higgs boson to the gauge bosons , and through two-loop gaugino/higgsino-mediated EDM graphs . For low-$`t_\beta `$ scenarios, the two-loop EDM contributions are found to be of the order of the experimental upper bounds. Therefore, it not very difficult to arrange the different two-loop EDM terms to partially cancel one another, and so reduce significantly their total size.

An immediate consequence of CP violation in the Higgs potential of the MSSM is the presence of mixing-mass terms between the CP-even and CP-odd Higgs fields. In the weak basis $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,a)`$, the neutral Higgs-boson mass matrix $`_N^2`$ takes on the form

$$_N^2=\left[\begin{array}{cc}_S^2& _{SP}^2\\ (_{SP}^2)^T& _P^2\end{array}\right],$$
(4)
where $`_S^2`$ and $`_P^2`$ describe the CP-conserving transitions between scalar and pseudoscalar particles, respectively, whereas $`_{SP}^2`$ describes CP-violating scalar-pseudoscalar transitions. The characteristic size of these CP-violating off-diagonal terms in the Higgs-boson mass matrix was found to be

$`M_{SP}^2`$ $``$ $`𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^4}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu ||A_t|}{32\pi ^2M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}`$ (5)
$`\times (6,{\displaystyle \frac{|A_t|^2}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu |^2}{\mathrm{tan}\beta M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu ||A_t|}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}),`$
where the last bracket summarizes the relative sizes of the different contributions, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}=\mathrm{arg}(A_t\mu )`$. As can be seen from Eq. (5), the CP-violating effects can become substantial if $`|\mu |`$ and $`|A_t|`$ are larger than the average of the stop masses, denoted as $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. For example, the off-diagonal terms of the neutral Higgs-mass matrix may be of order $`(100\mathrm{GeV})^2`$, for $`|\mu ||A_t|\stackrel{<}{_{}}3M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{CP}}90^{}`$.

The main effect of Higgs-sector CP violation is the modification of the couplings of the Higgs bosons to fermions and the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons, i.e. $`ffH_i`$, $`WWH_i`$, $`ZZH_i`$ and $`ZH_iH_j`$. The modified effective Lagrangians are given by

$`_{H\overline{f}f}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H_i[{\displaystyle \frac{g_wm_d}{2M_Wc_\beta }}\overline{d}(O_{1i}is_\beta O_{3i}\gamma _5)d`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_wm_u}{2M_Ws_\beta }}\overline{u}(O_{2i}ic_\beta O_{3i}\gamma _5)u],`$
$`_{HVV}`$ $`=`$ $`g_wM_W{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(c_\beta O_{1i}+s_\beta O_{2i})(H_iW_\mu ^+W^{,\mu }`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c_w^2}}H_iZ_\mu Z^\mu ),`$
$`_{HHZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_w}{4c_w}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[O_{3i}(c_\beta O_{2j}s_\beta O_{1j})O_{3j}(c_\beta O_{2i}s_\beta O_{1i})\right]`$ (8)
$`\times Z^\mu (H_i\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}H_j),`$
where $`c_w=M_W/M_Z`$, $`\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}`$, and $`O`$ is the orthogonal transformation matrix relating the weak with the mass Higgs-boson eigenstates.

Let us now discuss a representative example demonstrating the phenomenological consequences of Higgs-sector CP violation on the LEP2 and Tevatron colliders. We consider an intermediate value for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$, and a relatively light charged Higgs boson $`M_{H^+}=150`$ GeV, with $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=0.5`$ TeV, $`A_t=A_b=1`$ TeV and $`\mu =2`$ TeV. In Fig. 1, we then find regions for which the lightest Higgs-boson mass $`M_{H_1}`$ is as small as 60–70 GeV for $`\mathrm{arg}(A_t)90^{}`$, and the $`H_1ZZ`$ coupling $`g_{H_1ZZ}`$, which is normalized to its SM value, is small enough for the $`H_1`$ boson to escape detection at the latest LEP2 run with $`\sqrt{s}=202`$ GeV. Moreover, the $`H_2`$ boson is too heavy to be detected through the $`H_2ZZ`$ channel. In addition, either the coupling $`H_1H_2Z`$, $`g_{H_1H_2Z}=g_{H_3ZZ}`$, is too small or $`H_2`$ is too heavy to allow Higgs detection in the $`H_1H_2Z`$ channel. An upgraded Tevatron machine has the potential capabilities to close most of such experimentally open windows. The results of the recent complete RG analysis of Ref.  are in good qualitative agreement with earlier studies.

In conclusion, the MSSM with explicit radiative breaking of CP invariance in the Higgs sector  constitutes a very rich and predictive theoretical framework, with interesting consequences on collider experiments, CP asymmetries in $`B`$-meson decays,  and electroweak baryogenesis.

I wish to thank Marcela Carena, Darwin Chang, John Ellis, Wai-Yee Keung and Carlos Wagner for collaboration.


text:
# VanVleck Response Of A Two-Level System And Mesoscopic Orbital Magnetism Of Small Metals

## I Introduction

The significance of the few-level physics for small metal particles has long been realized,. At temperatures smaller than the mean level spacing at the Fermi level, $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the spin susceptibility, for instance, is determined by the (spin-flip) transitions to the first unoccupied state for the particles that contain even number of electrons and is typically much smaller than the Pauli susceptibility. For the odd-electron particles, it is given by the Curie susceptibility. This is in contrast to the $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (and the bulk) case where the leading term is given by the Pauli susceptibility. Moreover, due to the exponential activation factors associated with transitions to unoccupied states, one should expect extremely broad distribution of susceptibility values and, therefore, large variations from particle to particle.

The orbital magnetic response of small metal particles, on the other hand, does not easily reduce to a few-level problem. While it does turn out to be essentially a Fermi level property for $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and in the bulk systems-, a priori it appears as a property of the entire Fermi sea since all the levels are perturbed by the magnetic field. The two competing contributions to orbital magnetism are the precession diamagnetism and the polarization (van Vleck) paramagnetism. While no rigorous description of the orbital magnetism exists for $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, it is nonetheless expected to be a Fermi level property as well due to the large Fermi sea cancellations between the diamagnetic and paramagnetic contributions. However, at the Fermi level the van Vleck part of the orbital response should be dominant and also the one that is very sensitive to variations of the energy level spacings. Consequently, we study a model wherein it is assumed that among all the ”virtual transitions” between the ground and the excited states of the Fermi sea that are responsible for the van Vleck response, the one that determines the particle susceptibility is a single-electron ”transition” from the last occupied to the first unoccupied state.

Imry has conjectured that, since the electrons in a metal particle should be considered as a canonical ensemble, one can describe the particle response in terms of the difference between the magnetic energies of the canonical and grand canonical ensemble $`F_H\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$, the latter being the case for a bulk system and relatively well understood. In the limiting case of $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, one should expect the difference to be due to a single electron level crossing the position of the chemical potential in the equivalent grand canonical ensemble. However, the formalism based on this approach works only in the limit of $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as explained in Refs.,, in which case $`F\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta N^2/2`$ where the particle number fluctuation in the equivalent grand canonical ensemble is actually much larger than one, $`\delta N^2T/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$. In this limit, the perturbation theory can be used. An improvement on this approach involves using the exact, non-perturbative level correlation function and, in fact, yields a saturation value of the magnetic energy as $`T`$ approaches $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from above.

In what follows, we first give an argument in support of the large Fermi sea cancellation between the diamagnetic and paramagnetic contributions to the magnetic response. We then evaluate the two-level van Vleck response for the Fermi level and first unoccupied level. This involves averaging of the inverse energy spacing using the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE) statistics for energy eigenvalues and calculation of the magnetic dipole moment. The latter can be estimated using a semiclassical argument but also rigorously evaluated by considering the magnetic dipole absorption. We compare our result with the expression for the orbital magnetic response obtained in the limit $`T>\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We restrict our analysis to 2D diffusive particles (disks, narrow strips, and rings) and use the units where $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$. We also neglect any sample-specific effects (fluctuations), except when specifically mentioned, and all the quantities in consideration are presumed disorder-averaged.

## II Fermi Sea Cancellation Of Van Vleck Paramagnetism And Precession Diamagnetism

The van-Vleck energy of a two-level system in the magnetic field $`𝐇=H_0\widehat{𝐳}`$ is

$$\delta ϵ_{vV}^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{\left|i\left|\widehat{M}_z\right|f\right|^2H_0^2}{\epsilon _i\epsilon _f}\frac{\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2H_0^2}{\epsilon _i\epsilon _f}$$
(1)
and the total van Vleck energy is given by

$$ϵ_{vV}^{\left(tot\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,f}{}\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2H_0^2\frac{n_in_f}{\epsilon _i\epsilon _f}$$
(2)
where $`n_i=\theta \left(\epsilon _i\right)`$. In the case of a continuous spectrum, we can rewrite eq. (2), using $`dn_i/d\epsilon _i=\delta \left(\epsilon _i\right)`$, as

$$ϵ_{vV}^{\left(tot\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\upsilon H_0^2\underset{f}{}\left|\widehat{M}_{0f}\right|^2=\frac{1}{2}\upsilon 0\left|M_z^2\right|0H_0^2=\frac{\upsilon e^2v_F^20\left|r_{}^2\right|0H_0^2}{16}$$
(3)
where $`\upsilon \upsilon \left(0\right)`$ is the mean level density at the Fermi level, $`\upsilon \left(\epsilon \right)`$ is the level density at energy $`\epsilon `$. We have also used the fact that the magnetic moment at the Fermi level can be evaluated semiclassically, that is

$$𝐌=\frac{e}{2}𝐫\times 𝐯_F$$
(4)
where $`𝐫`$ is the classical position vector of an electron and $`𝐯_F`$ is the Fermi velocity. In evaluating the coefficient in eq. (3), we averaged over the angle between $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐯_F`$.

The single-level diamagnetic energy diamagnetic energy is given by

$$\delta ϵ_{diam}^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{e^2i\left|r_{}^2\right|iH_0^2}{8m}$$
(5)
and the total diamagnetic energy of the Fermi sea is given by

$$\delta ϵ_{diam}^{\left(tot\right)}=\underset{i}{}\frac{e^2i\left|r_{}^2\right|iH_0^2}{8m}n_i$$
(6)
It is reasonable to conjecture that the disorder-averaged value $`i\left|r_{}^2\right|i`$ is $`i`$ -independent which yields, upon converting to integration for a continuous spectrum,

$$\delta ϵ_{diam}^{\left(tot\right)}=\frac{\upsilon e^2v_F^20\left|r_{}^2\right|0H_0^2}{16}$$
(7)
and is the same as eq. (3), with the opposite sign. This confirms the Fermi sea cancellation between the van Vleck paramagnetism and precession diamagnetism***This argument can be carried over, with minor modifications, to 3D.,For a disk of radius $`R`$, $`0\left|r_{}^2\right|0`$ can be evaluated as the area average and equals to $`R^2/2`$.. However, this derivation does not account for the quantum effects beyond the existence of the Fermi sea. Consequently, it is understood that the cancellation is not exact and that a Fermi level contribution is not accounted for in the present approximation. The nature of this contribution should depend on whether the chemical potential or the number of particles is fixed. In the former case, one expects a Landau response, as in bulk systems, while in the latter we make an ansatz of a two-level van Vleck response which involves the last occupied (Fermi) level and the first unoccupied level.

The situation is more complex in a strictly discrete level case where we will give only an order-of-magnitude argument. The first principles estimate of $`\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2`$ in the diffusive regime is based on the idea first proposed by Shapoval and, later, applied by Gor’kov and Eliashberg to small metal particles. Namely, we use the semiclassical approach to write

$$\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2=\frac{1}{\pi \upsilon }\overline{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\epsilon _i\epsilon _f\right)\tau \right]M\left(t\right)M\left(t+\tau \right)}$$
(8)
where the bar denotes averaging over all classical trajectories. The correlation time scale $`\tau `$ for $`M\left(t\right)`$ is given by

$$\tau \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{D}$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{}=v_F\tau `$ is the electron mean-free-path and $`D=v_F^2`$ $`\tau /2`$ is the diffusion coefficient. This is because the directions of $`𝐯_F`$ are uncorrelated after such time. Also, for $`\epsilon _f\epsilon _i>\tau ^1`$ the exponential term becomes oscillatory. The scale of $`𝐫`$ is the relevant sample dimension $`a`$ and we find,

$$\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2\frac{1}{\pi \upsilon }\overline{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau M\left(t\right)M\left(t+\tau \right)}\frac{e^2\mathrm{}^2v_F^2a^2}{\upsilon D}\frac{e^2Da^2}{\upsilon }\mu _B^2\left(\epsilon _F\tau \right)$$
(10)
where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton and $`\epsilon _F`$ is the Fermi energy. Consequently, the order of magnitude value of the two-level van Vleck response is obtained from eq. (1) as

$$\delta ϵ_{vV}^{\left(1\right)}\frac{\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2H_0^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{\mu _B^2H_0^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\epsilon _F\tau \right)\left|\chi _L\right|H_0^2A\left(\epsilon _F\tau \right)$$
(11)
where $`\chi _L`$ is the Landau susceptibility and $`Aa^2`$ is the sample area. The total van Vleck energy can be estimated by multiplying $`\delta ϵ_{vV}^{\left(1\right)}`$ by $`\left(\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\right)^1`$, which determines the range of the integral in eq. (8), and we find

$$ϵ_{vV}^{\left(tot\right)}\frac{\mu _B^2H_0^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{\epsilon _F}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left|\chi _L\right|H_0^2A\frac{\epsilon _F}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(12)
Since $`0\left|r_{}^2\right|0a^2`$ , this is in qualitative agreement with eq. (3). Notice also that eq. (5) yields

$$\delta ϵ_{diam}^{\left(1\right)}\frac{\mu _B^2H_0^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left|\chi _L\right|H_0^2A$$
(13)
for a single-level contribution to the precession diamagnetism.

## III Van Vleck Paramagnetism In The Two-Level Model

Turning again to eq. (1), where now $`\epsilon _i`$ is the energy of the last occupied state (Fermi level) and $`\epsilon _f`$ is the energy of the first unoccupied state, we find, averaging with the Wigner-Dyson distribution,

$$\delta ϵ=s\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2H_0^2\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi x^2}{4}\right)𝑑x=\frac{\pi \upsilon }{2}\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2H_0^2$$
(14)
Here $`s`$ is the level degeneracy ($`s=2`$, on the account of spin) and $`\upsilon =s\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$. We have already estimated the matrix element using the semiclassical argument. However, a precise derivation of $`\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2`$ in the diffusive regime can be done by means of evaluation of the low-frequency magneto-dipole absorption in the field $`𝐇=H_0\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega t\right)\widehat{𝐳}`$. In the case of the continuous energy spectrum (for instance, when the level broadening $`\gamma `$ is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ), the quantum-mechanical expression for the absorption should yield, up to small corrections, the classical value. This is in complete analogy with the electric-dipole absorption (barring screening effects for the latter), which is discussed in detail in Ref.. Since $`\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2`$ enters into the quantum-mechanical expression (see below), it can be extracted by equating with the classical value of the absorption.

The classical absorption is readily evaluated according to

$$Q_{class}=\frac{1}{2}\omega Im\left\{M_z^{}H_0\right\}$$
(15)
where

$`M_z^{\left(disk\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{AH_0}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\varkappa R}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_1\left(\varkappa R\right)}{J_0\left(\varkappa R\right)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{AH_0}{32\pi }}\left(\varkappa R\right)^2\text{}A=\pi R^2`$ (16)
$`M_z^{\left(strip\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{AH_0}{8\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\left(\varkappa L_x/2\right)}{\varkappa L_x/2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{AH_0}{96\pi }}\left(\varkappa L_x\right)^2\text{}A=L_xL_y`$ (17)
for a disk of radius $`R`$ and for a narrow metal strip, such that $`L_xL_y`$, respectively. Here

$$\varkappa =\frac{1+i}{\delta }\text{}\delta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma \omega }}$$
(18)
and $`\sigma `$ is the Boltzmann conductivity. It is assumed that the frequency is such that $`\delta R,L_x`$. Combining eqs. (15)-(18), we obtain

$`Q_{class}^{\left(disk\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2H_0^2R^2A\sigma }{16}}`$ (19)
$`Q_{class}^{\left(strip\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2H_0^2L_x^2A\sigma }{48}}`$ (20)
for the absorption, respectively, in the disk and the strip.

The quantum absorption, for the continuous spectrum, can be evaluated (in complete analogy with the electric-dipole absorption) by means of the Fermi golden rule and we find

$$Q_{cont}=\frac{\pi }{2}\omega ^2\upsilon ^2H_0^2\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2\frac{\upsilon \left(0\right)\upsilon \left(\omega \right)}{\upsilon ^2}\frac{\pi }{2}\omega ^2\upsilon ^2H_0^2\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2$$
(21)
where the small quantum corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\gamma ^2`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\omega ^2`$ if $`\omega >\gamma `$) are neglected. For the electric-dipole absorption,, the quantity corresponding to $`\widehat{M}_{if}`$ is the electric dipole matrix element $`\widehat{P}_{if}`$ . The latter can be evaluated from first principles in the diffusive approximation and the classical and quantum results can be evaluated independently and are equal in the considered limit. On physical grounds, we can assume that this is also true for the magnetic-dipole absorption. Consequently, we equate the r.h.s. of eqs. (19), (20) with that of eq. (21) and, with the use of $`\sigma =e^2\upsilon D/A`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\upsilon \left|\widehat{M}_{if}^{\left(disk\right)}\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2DR^2}{16}}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\upsilon \left|\widehat{M}_{if}^{\left(strip\right)}\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2DL_x^2}{48}}`$ (23)
for the disk and the strip respectively.

Substituting thus found value of $`\left|\widehat{M}_{if}\right|^2`$ in eq. (14), we find (for $`s=2`$) the following result for the van Vleck energy:

$`\delta ϵ^{\left(disk\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}e^2DR^2H_0^2`$ (24)
$`\delta ϵ^{\left(strip\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}e^2DL_x^2H_0^2`$ (25)
for the disk and the strip respectively. Eqs. (24) and (25) should be compared with the magnetic part of the energy obtained for $`T>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the so called ”mixed approximation” wherein the exact, non-perturbative level correlation function is used yet the large particle-number fluctuation in the equivalent grand canonical ensemble is assumed also, the latter being true only for $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\delta ϵ_>=\frac{1}{2\pi }\tau _H^1$$
(26)
The procedure for the evaluation of $`\tau _H^1`$ using the gauge where the vector potential is tangential to the surface is described in Ref. and we find

$`\delta ϵ_>^{\left(disk\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}e^2DR^2H_0^2`$ (27)
$`\delta ϵ_>^{\left(strip\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}e^2DL_x^2H_0^2`$ (28)
for the disk and the strip respectively.

We also mention the Aharonov-Bohm response of a narrow ring threaded by the flux $`\varphi `$, where the derivation is particularly simple. Namely, the van Vleck energy in this case is given by

$$\delta ϵ_{if}=\frac{\left|\widehat{v}_{if}\right|^2}{\epsilon _i\epsilon _f}\left(\frac{e\varphi }{2\pi R}\right)^2$$
(29)
where $`\left|\widehat{v}_{if}\right|^2`$ is evaluated by considering absorption in the alternating flux $`\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega t\right)`$ which generates the electric field according to the Lenz’s law that, in turn, produces the Boltzmann current density proportional to $`v`$. Consequently, we find

$$\left|\widehat{v}_{if}\right|^2=\frac{D}{4\pi \upsilon }$$
(30)
and, averaging over the level spacing,

$$\delta ϵ^{\left(ring\right)}\frac{D}{8}\left(\frac{e\varphi }{\pi R}\right)^2$$
(31)
The latter has the same parametric dependence as

$$\delta ϵ_>^{\left(ring\right)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\tau _H^1=\frac{D}{2\pi }\left(\frac{e\varphi }{\pi R}\right)^2$$
(32)
which is the limiting value of energy for $`T>\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

## IV Discussion

The main result of this paper is that the parametric dependence of eqs. (24), (25) and (27), (28) is the same (with closely matching numerical coefficients). Consequently, the orbital magnetic response of a level-quantized metal particle can be satisfactorily explained in terms of the two-level van Vleck response. This conclusion also holds for other level distributions characteristic of disordered (chaotic) systems, such as the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (only the numerical coefficient will be different).

Whereas the two-level picture might be also valid for the Poisson distribution, which is the case for classically integrable systems, the mean response needs to be examined more carefully because level ”bunching,” characteristic of this distribution, implies that for any magnitude of the field there will be a significant number of particles for which the perturbation theory no longer applies.

Another question which we hope to address in a future work is the sample-specific (fluctuation) effects that are expected to be quite large in the limit considered here. We point out that, in addition to the fluctuation of the level spacing and the magnetic moment, the details of the cancellation between the van Vleck paramagnetism and Landau diamagnetism should differ from particle to particle leading to variations in the number of levels contributing to the total response.

## V Acknowledgment

I wish to thank Bernard Goodman for helpful discussions. This work was not supported by any funding agency.


text:
# Virtual Color Superconductivity–Status and Perspective aafootnote aTalk given at the “Symposium on the Frontiers of Physics at Millennium”, Beijing, China, Oct. 8-10, 1999.

## 1 Introduction

QCD at finite temperature and zero density condition is relatively well understood compared the finite density situation. The technical reasons are well known. Physically, quantum decoherence increases as temperature gets high making the behaviour of the system essentially classical. On the other hand, density effects do not reduce quantum coherence. One has to deal with the quantum effects. A brief review is given here about the current status of our understanding of the role played by the color superconducting phase in the strong interaction ground state close to zero density and in hadron structure.

## 2 High Density Limit

The ground state of QCD at high enough density is most likely to be in a color superconducting phase. This is because quarks on a high Fermi surface carry high momentum and produce large momentum transfer in scattering, so that the two quark interaction kernel in color triplet channel can be approximated well by an attractive one gluon exchange term. The attractive interaction generates the BCS instability that creates a gap of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BCS}e^{c/g}`$ with $`c`$ a constant. The properties of the color superconducting phase are actively studied in the recent literature base on various approaches like the instanton model, the one gluon exchange approximation improved by renormalization group treatment and the contact 4-fermion interaction model.

No matter what models are adopted for the discussion, the fact that color superconducting phase should be the ground state of the high density quark matter is quite clear according to well established BCS theory for superconductivity in non-relativistic condensed matter systems. A gap of order of a few 100 MeV is guaranteed at not so high density since the natural scale of the problem is of order 1 GeV and the coupling between quarks is of order 1. Otherwise, fine tuning is required.

The general consensus on the properties of the color superconducting phase of quark matter at asymptotically high density and zero temperature is that the ground state is in a color flavor locked state involving up, down and strange quarks. As the density is lowered, the color flavor locked state ceases to be the true ground state of the system, the true ground state is in a color superconducting phase involves only the up and down quarks. Such a color superconducting phase is again disfavoured as the density is further lowered to some critical density $`\rho _c`$. The color superconducting phase stops to manifest at a macroscopic scale when $`\rho \rho _c`$. The current estimate of $`\rho _c`$ is so high that the physical effects of the color superconducting phase can only be possible to manifest in a neutron star in the conventional understanding of the problem based mainly on the physical picture gained in the study of non-relativistic many body systems.

Since there are already reviews on this subject$`^\mathrm{?}`$ at high density, I shall mainly concentrate on a brief review of my own efforts in the past 10 years (1989-1999), which actually started the study of vacuum color superconductivity. I however looked at the problem with a different perspective.

## 3 The Possible Role of the Color Superconducting Phase at Low or Zero Density

What is the fate of the color superconducting phase at low density then? One thing is quite clear that the attraction between quark pairs in a color triplet state still exist. It is evidenced by the existence of baryons which are made up of three quarks. One of the reasons besides confinement for the color superconducting phase to disappear at low density is due to the competition from the quark–antiquark pairing. Since as the density is lowered, the antiquark excitation due to interaction becomes less suppressed. A sufficient number of the interaction generated antiquarks begin to pair with the quarks of the system to condense in the ground state, which cause the well know spontaneous breaking of the chiral symmetry.

In order to study the phase and the neighbourhood of the strong interaction vacuum state, the present framework of finite density theory based on non-relativistic space-time is found to be inadequate. Inconsistencies in the logic flow of physical argumentation and unphysical solution occur when one goes beyond the quasi-particle picture. Thus not only the kinematics of individual particles has to be relativistic, but also the covariance related to the relativistic space-time transformation for the whole system at the quantum field level has to be implemented in a way that is consistent to quantum mechanics.

The results of the efforts include: 1) the model building and studying for vector$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and scalar$`^\mathrm{?}`$ diquark condensation and many of the technical development$`^\mathrm{?}`$ 2) the introduction of an 8–component real representation for fermions$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, which is not identical to the conventional 4-component representation at finite density$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The advantage of using the 8–component theory to study the vacuum properties is discussed. It also enable me to isolate some of the differences near zero density between my work and the later commonly adopted ones$`^\mathrm{?}`$ which contain a continuous mixing between the color superconducting phase and the chiral symmetry breaking phase in the parameter space where no metastable phase is found. The difference originates from a different coupling between quarks in the diquarks. While the “reality condition” adopted here requires that quark and mirror quarkbbbIt is identical to a quark at zero density. are correlated to condense, other approaches couple quark and mirror antiquark for the correlated diquarks$`^\mathrm{?}`$, which can naturally be mixed with the chiral symmetry breaking phase. Such a difference disappear at high density. 3) the possibility that the effects of a metastable phase can manifest in local observables and propagators $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ 4) the development of a consistent local finite density theory$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, which combines all of the above considerations. The effects of statistical blocking in the chiral symmetry breaking phase and the spontaneous CP violation in the color superconducting phase was discovered as a result$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Also discussed is the dynamics of the statistical gauge field in various phases. It is believed that the statistical blocking effects could provide a mechanism$`^\mathrm{?}`$ to prevent the dissolution of a nucleon inside a nucleus$`^\mathrm{?}`$, which is in direct contradiction to the experimental fact that a nucleon inside a nucleus keeps most of its identity.

Is what are talked about above correspond to reality? To answer it, some of the empirical knowledge about a nucleon, which serves as a carrier of the information about the virtual phase of the vacuum state, are analyzed.

The chiral properties of a nucleon is studied$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, to search for a vector type of virtual color superconducting phase. There are some hints. More detailed works are needed. The recent discovery of a large anapole moment for a nucleon$`^\mathrm{?}`$ that can not be accounted for by conventional electroweak theory$`^\mathrm{?}`$ may also be a hint for a vector type virtual color superconducting phase since the order parameter here breaks parity which can induce an axial type of coupling for a photon to a nucleon$`^\mathrm{?}`$. The electromagnetic properties of a nucleon is studied next base on the mechanism of partial breaking of the electromagnetic gauge symmetry$`^\mathrm{?}`$ in a color superconductor. The Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule, which is currently unable to be saturated by experimental data, is a possible observable for both scalar and vector type of color superconducting phase$`^\mathrm{?}`$. A collection deep inelastic scattering data for a lepton on a nucleon is analyzed, the results, especially the measured polarized structure function for a nucleon at small Bjorken x, indicates the existence of a virtual superconducting phase$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Other evidences, which is less model independent, is also considered$`^\mathrm{?}`$. In the near future, at least two possibile developements could be foreseen: 1) the nucleon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$–term problem, which is made worse by the analysis $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ of most recent data on pion nucleon scattering, could be resolved $`^\mathrm{?}`$ by using the local theory developed here $`^\mathrm{?}`$ 2) type of the CP/T violation data obtained in the KTeV Collaboration should be analyzed$`^\mathrm{?}`$ in more details to search$`^\mathrm{?}`$ for possible anomalies.

## Acknowledgements

This work was support by National Natural Science Foundation of China. I would like to thank Prof. A. W. Thomas and the CSSM of Univeristy of Adelaide for hospitality during which this write up is done.

## References


text:
# FROM BLACK HOLES TO POMERON: Tensor Glueball and Pomeron Intercept at Strong Coupling11footnote 1 Talk presented by R. C. Brower at ISMD99: QCD and Multiuparticle Production. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02/91ER40688 and DE-FG02-91ER40676

## 1 Introduction

The Maldacena conjecture  and its further extensions allow us to compute quantities in a strongly coupled gauge theory from its dual gravity description. In particular, Witten  has pointed out if we compactify the 4-dimensional conformal super Yang Mills (SYM) to 3 dimensions using anti-periodic boundary conditions on the fermions, then we break supersymmetry and conformal invariance and obtain a theory that has interesting mass scales. This approach has been used to calculate a discrete mass spectrum for $`\stackrel{~}{0}^{++}`$ states associated with $`Tr[F^2]`$ at strong coupling by solving the dilaton’s wave equation in the corresponding gravity description. Although the theory at strong coupling is really not pure Yang-Mills, since it has additional fields, some rough agreement was claimed with the pattern of glueball masses.

Here we report on the calculation of the discrete modes for the perturbations of the gravitational metric. A complete description for all discrete fluctuations has also been carried out, both for $`QCD_3`$ and $`QCD_4`$. For simplicity, we shall discuss here mostly $`QCD_3`$. For $`QCD_4`$, from the mass of the $`2^{++}`$ state and the calculated QCD string tension, we obtain a strong coupling expansion for the Pomeron intercept: $`\alpha _P(0)=20(1/g^2N)`$. In this approach, the Pomeron corresponds to a “massive graviton”. Other results will be reported elsewhere.

## 2 AdS/CFT Duality at Finite $`\beta `$

Let us review briefly the proposal for getting a 3-d Yang-Mills theory dual to supergravity. One begins by considering Type IIB supergravity in Euclidean 10-dimensional spacetime with the topology $`M_5\times S^5`$. The Maldacena conjecture asserts that IIB superstring theory on $`AdS^5\times S^5`$ is dual to the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM conformal field theory on the boundary of the $`AdS`$ space. The metric of this spacetime is

$$ds^2/R_{ads}^2=r^2(d\tau ^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+\frac{dr^2}{r^2}+d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,$$

where the radius of the $`AdS`$ spacetime is given through $`R_{AdS}^4=g_sN\alpha ^2`$ ($`g_s`$ is the string coupling and $`l_s`$ is the string length, $`l_s^2=\alpha ^{}`$). The Euclidean time is $`\tau =ix_0`$. To break conformal invariance, following ref.  , we place the system at a nonzero temperature described by a periodic Euclidean time $`\tau =\tau +\beta `$, $`\beta =2\pi R_0`$. The metric correspondingly changes, for small enough $`R_0`$, to the non-extremal black hole metric in $`AdS`$ space. For large black hole temperatures, the stable phase of the metric corresponds to a black hole with radius large compared to the $`AdS`$ curvature scale. To see the physics of discrete modes, we may take the limit of going close to the horizon, whereby the metric reduces to that of the black 3-brane. This metric is, (where $`f(r)=r^2\frac{1}{r^2}`$, and we have scaled out all dimensionful quantities),

$$ds^2=fd\tau ^2+f^1dr^2+r^2(dx_1^1+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,$$
(1)
On the gauge theory side, we would have a $`𝒩=4`$ susy theory corresponding to the $`AdS`$ spacetime, but with the $`S^1`$ compactification with antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions, supersymmetry is broken and massless scalars are expected to acquire quantum corrections. Consequently from the view point of a 3-d theory, the compactification radius acts as an UV cut-off. Before the compactification the 4-d theory was conformal, and was characterized by a dimensionless effective coupling $`(g_{YM}^{(4)})^2Ng_sN`$. After the compactification the theory is not conformal, and the radius of the compact circle provides a length scale. Let this radius be $`R_0`$. Then a naive dimensional reduction from 4-d Yang-Mills to 3-d Yang-Mills, would give an effective coupling in the 3-d theory equal to $`(g_{YM}^{(3)})^2N=(g_{YM}^{(4)})^2N/(2\pi R_0)`$. The 3-d YM coupling has the units of mass. If the dimensionless coupling $`(g_{YM}^{(4)})^2N`$ is much less than unity, then the length scale associated with this mass is larger than the radius of compactification, and we may expect the 3-d theory to be a dimensionally reduced version of the 4-d theory.

Unfortunately the dual supergravity description only applies at $`(g_{YM}^{(4)})^2N>>1`$, so that the higher Kaluza-Klein modes of the $`S^1`$ compactification have lower energy than the mass scale set by the 3-d coupling. Thus we do not really have a 3-d gauge theory with a finite number of additional fields. One may nevertheless expect that some general properties of the dimensionally reduced theory might survive the strong coupling limit. Moreover, we expect that the pattern of spin splittings might be a good place to look for similarities. In keeping with earlier work, we ignore the Kaluza-Klein modes of the $`S^1`$ and restrict ourselves to modes that are singlets of the $`SO(6)`$, since non-singlets under the $`S^1`$ and the $`SO(6)`$ can have no counterparts in a dimensionally reduced $`QCD_3`$.

## 3 Wave Equations

We wish to consider fluctuations of the metric of the form,

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x),$$
(2)
leading to the linear Einstein equation,

$$h_{\mu \nu ;\lambda }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }+h_\lambda ^\lambda {}_{;\mu \nu }{}^{}h_{\mu \lambda ;\nu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }h_{\nu \lambda ;\mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }8h_{\mu \nu }=0.$$

Our perturbations will have the form

$$h_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\mu \nu }(r)e^{mx_3}$$
(3)
where we have chosen to use $`x_3`$ as a Euclidean time direction to define the glueball masses of the 3-d gauge theory. We fix the gauge to $`h_{3\mu }=0`$.

¿From the above ansatz and the metric, we see that we have an $`SO(2)`$ rotational symmetry in the $`x_1x_2`$ space, and we can classify our perturbations with respect spin.

Spin-2: There are two linearly independent perturbations which form the spin-2 representation of $`SO(2)`$: $`h_{12}=h_{21}=q_T(r)e^{mx_3},h_{11}=h_{22}=q_T(r)e^{mx_3}`$ with all other components zero. The Einstein equations give,

$$(r^2\frac{1}{r^2})q_T^{\prime \prime }+(r+\frac{3}{r^3})q_T^{}+(\frac{m^2}{r^2}4\frac{4}{r^4})q_T=0.$$

Defining $`\varphi _T(r)=q_T(r)/r^2`$, this is the same equation as that satisfied by the dilaton (with constant value on the $`S^5`$).

Spin-1:  The Einstein equation for the ansatz, $`h_{i\tau }=h_{\tau i}=q_V(r)e^{mx_3},i=1,2`$ gives

$$(r^2\frac{1}{r^2})q_V^{\prime \prime }+(r\frac{1}{r^3})q_V^{}+(\frac{m^2}{r^2}4+\frac{4}{r^4})q_V=0.$$
(4)
Spin-0: Based on the symmetries we choose an ansatz where the nonzero components of the perturbation are

$`h_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{22}=q_1(r)e^{mx_3}`$
$`h_{\tau \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`2q_1(r){\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{r^2}}e^{mx_3}+q_2(r)e^{mx_3}`$
$`h_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3(r)e^{mx_3}`$
where $`f(r)`$ is defined above in the metric. The field equation for $`q_3q_S(r)`$, is

$$p_2(r)q_S^{\prime \prime }(r)+p_1(r)q_S^{}(r)+p_0(r)q_S(r)=0,$$
(5)
where $`p_2(r)=r^2(r^41)^2[3(r^41)+m^2r^2]`$, $`p_1(r)=r(r^41)[3(r^41)(5r^4+3)+m^2r^2(7r^4+5)]`$ and $`p_0(r)=9(r^41)^3+2m^2r^2(3+2r^4+3r^8)+m^4r^4(r^41)`$.

## 4 Numerical Solution

To calculate the discrete spectrum for our three equation, one must apply the correct boundary conditions at $`r=1`$ and $`r=\mathrm{}`$. The result is a Sturm-Liouville problem for the propagation of gravitational fluctuations in a “wave guide”.

Table 1. Glueball Excitation Spectrum

Using this shooting method we have computed the the first 10 states given in Table 4. The spin-2 equation is equivalent to the dilaton equation , so the excellent agreement with earlier values validates our method. We used a standard Mathematica routine with boundaries taken to be $`x=r^21=ϵ`$ and $`1/x=ϵ`$ reducing $`ϵ`$ gradually to $`ϵ=10^6`$. Note that since all our eigenfunctions must be even in $`r`$ with nodes spacing in $`x=r^21`$ of $`O(m^2)`$, the variable $`1/x`$ is a natural way to measure the distance to the boundary at infinity. For both boundaries, the values of $`ϵ`$ was varied to demonstrate that they were near enough to $`r=1,`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ so as not to substantially effect the answer.

As one sees in the accompanying figure, they match very accurately with the leading order WKB approximation. Simple variational forms also lead to very accurate upper bounds for the ground state ($`n=0`$) masses.

## 5 Strong coupling Expansion for Pomeron Intercept

Our current exercise has been extended to 4-d QCD using a scheme involving the finite temperature version of $`AdS^7\times S^4`$. As has been suggested elsewhere, one goal is to find that background metric that has the phenomenologically best strong coupling limit. This should provide an optimal starting point for approaching the continuum weak coupling regime. Here, we shall report briefly the key constraint provided by the Pomeron intercept.

The Pomeron is the leading Regge trajectory passing through the lightest glueball state with $`J^{PC}=2^{++}`$. In a linear approximation, it can be parameterized by

$$\alpha _P(t)=2+\alpha _P^{}(tm_T^2),$$
(6)
where we can use the strong coupling estimate for the lightest tensor mass222 We have adopted the normalization in the $`AdS`$-black hole metric to simplify the coefficients, e.g., for $`AdS^7`$, $`\overline{g}_{\tau \tau }=r^2r^4`$. This corresponds to fixing the “thermal-radius” $`R_1=1/3`$ so that $`\beta =2\pi R_1=2\pi /3`$.,

$$m_T[9.86+0(\frac{1}{g^2N})]\beta ^1.$$
(7)
Moreover if we make the standard assumption that the closed string tension is twice that between two static quark sources, we also have a strong coupling expression for the Pomeron slope,

$$\alpha _P^{}[\frac{27}{32\pi g^2N}+0(\frac{1}{g^4N^2})]\beta ^2.$$
(8)
Putting these together, we obtain a strong coupling expansion for the Pomeron intercept,

$$\alpha _P(0)20.66(\frac{4\pi }{g^2N})+0(\frac{1}{g^4N^2}).$$
(9)
Turning this argument around, we can estimate a crossover value between the strong and weak coupling regimes by fixing $`\alpha _P(0)1.2`$ at its phenomenological value. In fact this yields for $`QCD_4`$ at $`N=3`$ a reasonable value for $`\alpha _{strong}=g^2/4\pi =0.176`$ for the crossover. Much more experience with this new approach to strong coupling must be gained before such numerology can be taken seriously. However, similar crude argument have proven to be a useful guide in the crossover regime of lattice QCD. One might even follow the general strategy used in the lattice cut-off formulations. Postpone the difficult question of analytically solving the QCD string to find the true UV fixed point. Instead work at a fixed but physically reasonable cut-off scale (or bare coupling) to calculate the spectrum. If one is near enough to the fixed point, mass ratios should be reliable. After all, the real benefit of a weak/strong duality is to use each method in the domain where it provides the natural language. On the other hand, clearly from a fundamental point of view, finding analytical tools to understand the renormalized trajectory and prove asymptotic scaling within the context of the gauge invariant QCD string would also be a major achievement — an achievement that presumably would include a proof of confinement itself.

Results on these computations will be reported in a future publication.

Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge useful conversations with R. Jaffe, A. Jevicki, D. Lowe, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and others.

## References


text:
# Graviton Propagators, Brane Bending and Bending of Light in Theories with Quasi-Localized Gravity

## Abstract:

We derive the graviton propagator on the brane for theories with quasi-localized gravity. In these models the ordinary 4D graviton is replaced by a resonance in the spectrum of massive Kaluza-Klein modes, which can decay into the extra dimension. We find that the effects of the extra polarization in the massive graviton propagator is exactly cancelled by the bending of the brane due to the matter sources, up to small corrections proportional to the width of the resonance. Thus at intermediate scales the classic predictions of Einstein’s gravity are reproduced in these models to arbitrary precision.

preprint: hep-th/0003020

Following the work  of Randall and Sundrum (RS) there has been considerable interest  in the phenomenon of localization of gravity (for previous relevant work see ). RS found a solution to the five dimensional Einstein equations in a background created by a single positive tension 3-brane and a negative bulk cosmological constant which reproduces the effects of four-dimensional gravity on the brane without the need to compactify the fifth dimension. The reason for this is that the fluctuations of the 4D metric are described by an ordinary quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation, where the shape of the QM potential resembles a volcano. This potential supports exactly one bound state with zero energy, which can be identified with the 4D massless graviton, since the wave functions of the massive continuum Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes are suppressed at the brane due to the tunneling through the potential barrier. Thus the effects of the KK modes are negligible for small energies, and at large distances ordinary 4D gravity is reproduced.

Recently Gregory, Rubakov and Sibiryakov (GRS) found a brane model in which 4D gravity is reproduced only at intermediate scales, since at very small scales there are the same power-law corrections as in the RS model, while at very large scales the gravitational theory on the brane is again modified .222A similar proposal has been made in . It has been explained, that the reason behind this phenomenon (dubbed “quasi-localization of gravity”) is that the zero-mode of the QM system of these theories becomes unstable and the exact bound state is replaced by a resonance of zero mass in the continuum spectrum  (see also ). As long as the lifetime of this resonance is large, there is a large region of intermediate scales where an effective 4D Newton potential is reproduced. Once we get to large enough distances, the resonance will decay and therefore the gravitational potential will be corrected.

It has been however suggested in , that even though the correct Newton potential is reproduced at intermediate scales, one does not reproduce the results of ordinary 4D Einstein gravity. The argument given in  for this is that in these models the resonant mode is a collective effect of very light (but $`m0`$) KK modes. It is, however, well-known that the $`m0`$ limit of a massive graviton propagator does not reproduce the massless graviton propagator, due to the fact that the number of polarizations of the two fields do not match . Based on this discontinuity in the graviton propagator as $`m0`$, it was argued in  that the predictions of theories with quasi-localization of gravity would significantly differ from those of ordinary gravity. In particular the bending of light was predicted to be $`\frac{3}{4}`$ of the value in general relativity.

In this letter we show that this is in fact not the case. We find that up to additional small corrections (which vanish in the limit in which the width of the resonance $`\mathrm{\Delta }m0`$) the results of ordinary 4D gravity are reproduced on the brane at intermediate scales as in the RS scenario.

The issue is that the 5D massless graviton propagator is given by

$$G_5(x,x^{})_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\frac{d^5p}{(2\pi )^5}\frac{e^{ip(xx^{})}}{p^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }+\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho }\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }g_{\rho \sigma }\right),$$
(1)
while the 4D massless propagator is

$$G_4(x,x^{})_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ip(xx^{})}}{p^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }+\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }g_{\rho \sigma }\right).$$
(2)
The difference in the tensor structure of these two propagators is caused by the presence of an extra polarization state, a 4D scalar field, contained in the 5D graviton propagator. Thus we see that the situation in theories with localization and quasi-localization of gravity is not very different: In the case of localized gravity the scalar field must be included in the effective 4D theory, while in the case of quasi-localized gravity the scalar is eaten by the massive graviton modes and appears as an additional graviton polarization. One has to explain in both cases why the extra polarization state does not eventually contribute to the propagator on the brane. Intuitively this is the case for the following reason: in brane models the stress tensor for a source on a brane has a vanishing 55 component; thus we might naïvely expect that one degree of freedom, namely the scalar field, decouples from the sources on the brane and therefore the ordinary massless 4D graviton propagator should be reproduced. It has been shown in two beautiful papers by Garriga and Tanaka , and by Giddings, Katz and Randall  that this is in fact the case. They have shown that once a source term on the brane is introduced the brane itself is bent in a frame in which gravitational fluctuations are small. The effect of the bending is such that it exactly compensates for the effect of the extra 4D scalar field contained in the 5D graviton propagator, and thus the ordinary 4D massless graviton propagator is reproduced in the RS model. This hints that a similar situation may occur for theories with quasi-localized gravity, since the massive propagator of the KK modes making up the resonance exactly the same tensor structure as the massless graviton plus the scalar. We will show that the effect of the brane bending will again cancel the effects of the extra polarization in the massive propagator, up to corrections depending on the width of the resonance, which can be made arbitrarily small by adjusting the parameters of the theory. Thus there is no discontinuity in these models as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m0`$ and the results of ordinary 4D Einstein theory are reproduced at intermediate scales up to small corrections.

We now turn to the problem of constructing the propagators in a general brane world described by the metric

$$ds^2=dy^2+e^{A(y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(3)
We will take $`A(y)`$ to approach the Randall-Sundrum form for $`|y|y_0`$:

$$A(y)2k|y|,$$
(4)
while for $`|y|y_0`$ the metric becomes flat:

$$A(y)\mathrm{constant}.$$
(5)
For instance, this is achieved in the GRS model  by simply patching anti-de Sitter space to flat space at some point $`y=y_0`$:

$$A(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2k|y|\hfill & |y|y_0\hfill \\ 2ky_0\hfill & |y|y_0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
However, more generally one can imagine backgrounds that smoothly interpolate between $`AdS_5`$ and flat space . Since the metric approaches the RS metric for $`|y|y_0`$, there is a brane located at $`y=0`$ on which the matter fields will live.

We now study gravitational fluctuations in the background (3). It is possible to choose a gauge for the gravitational fluctuations so that they have the form

$$ds^2=dy^2+e^{A(y)}(\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu })dx^\mu dx^\nu ,$$
(7)
where, in addition, we impose the transverse-traceless conditions

$$^\nu h_{\mu \nu }=h_\mu ^\mu h=0.$$
(8)
In this gauge, the transverse-traceless fluctuations satisfy the simple equation

$$\left(e^A\mathrm{}^{(4)}+_y^22A^{}_y\right)h_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(9)
which is nothing but the scalar wave equation for each of the components $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ in the background (3). At the brane, we have the usual matching condition:

$$_yh_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0}=0.$$
(10)
In the GRS model, there is an additional matching condition at the point $`y_0`$, where $`AdS_5`$ is patched onto flat space:

$$_yh_{\mu \nu }|_{y=y_0+}=_yh_{\mu \nu }|_{y=y_0}.$$
(11)
Until now, the only matter sources in the theory were those that were needed to produce the non-trivial background (3).333The details of these background sources is not important for our present discussion. We only need assume that the sources vary linearly with a variation of the metric (see  for a discussion of this). Now suppose we have additional sources corresponding to matter on the brane. The question is how this modifies the equations for the fluctuations. It turns out the answer, as described in the papers by Garriga and Tanaka , and by Giddings, Katz and Randall , is rather subtle but crucial for our analysis. We closely follow the former paper in what follows.

The point is that in the original coordinate system $`(x^\mu ,y)`$, the presence of the source on the brane actually bends the brane so that is no longer situated at $`y=0`$. In order to investigate this effect, it is useful to introduce a new coordinate system $`(\overline{x}^\mu ,\overline{y})`$ defined so that the brane is at $`\overline{y}=0`$. We require that the metric in the new coordinate system also has the form (7), and this means that the two coordinate systems must be related via

$$\overline{y}=y+\widehat{\xi }^y(x),\overline{x}^\mu =x^\mu +\widehat{\xi }^\mu (x)^\mu \widehat{\xi }^y(x)^y𝑑y^{}e^{A(y^{})}.$$
(12)
Notice that the functions $`\widehat{\xi }^y(x)`$ and $`\widehat{\xi }^\mu (x)`$ do not depend on $`y`$. The relation between the metric fluctuations in the two coordinates systems is then

$$h_{\mu \nu }=\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }+_\mu \widehat{\xi }_\nu +_\nu \widehat{\xi }_\mu 2_\mu _\nu \widehat{\xi }^y^y𝑑y^{}e^{A(y^{})}\eta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{\xi }^y_yA.$$
(13)
At the moment, we have not specified the function $`\widehat{\xi }^y(x)`$ and $`\widehat{\xi }^\mu (x)`$; however, they will be determined self-consistently, as we shall see below.

The additional sources will modify the matching condition at the brane (10). In the new coordinate system, where the brane is at $`\overline{y}=0`$, the Israel equations at the brane give,

$$_{\overline{y}}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }|_{\overline{y}=0+}=\kappa ^2\left(S_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }S\right),$$
(14)
where $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ is given in terms of the matter stress tensor via

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{brane}}=S_{\mu \nu }(x)\delta (\overline{y}),T_{\overline{y}\overline{y}}^{\mathrm{brane}}=T_{\mu \overline{y}}^{\mathrm{brane}}=0.$$
(15)
Using the relation between the metric fluctuations (13) we can now write down the boundary condition (14) in the original coordinates:444Notice that to leading order in the source we can specify the following condition at $`y=0`$.

$$_yh_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0+}=\kappa ^2\left(S_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }S\right)2_\mu _\nu \widehat{\xi }^y.$$
(16)
In the GRS model there is also the matching condition at $`y_0`$ (11). It is easy to show that this condition is simply

$$_{\overline{y}}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }|_{\overline{y}=\overline{y}_0+}=_{\overline{y}}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }|_{\overline{y}=\overline{y}_0},$$
(17)
and so in the original coordinates (11) remains unchanged.

The position of the brane in the original coordinate system is $`y=\widehat{\xi }^y(x)`$ and so the condition (16) includes, via $`\widehat{\xi }^y(x)`$, an effect from the bending of the brane. We now can now combine the equation of motion (9) and the boundary condition (16) to give

$$\left(e^A\mathrm{}^{(4)}+_y^22A^{}_y\right)h_{\mu \nu }=2\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\delta (y),$$
(18)
where we have defined the effective source

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }=S_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }S+\frac{2}{\kappa ^2}_\mu _\nu \widehat{\xi }^y.$$
(19)
In order to determine $`\widehat{\xi }^y`$, we now impose the fact that $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is traceless: $`h=0`$. The implies that the right-hand side of (18) itself must be traceless and so

$$\mathrm{}^{(4)}\widehat{\xi }^y=\frac{\kappa ^2}{6}S,$$
(20)
with solution

$$\widehat{\xi }^y(x)=\frac{\kappa ^2}{6}d^4x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_4(x,x^{})S(x^{}),$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4(x,x^{})`$ is the massless scalar Green’s function for 4D Minkowski space. If we now define the five-dimensional Green’s function

$$\left(e^A\mathrm{}^{(4)}+_y^22A^{}_y\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_5(x,y;x^{},y^{})=\delta ^{(4)}(xx^{})\delta (yy^{}),$$
(22)
then the fluctuation due to the source on the brane can be written

$$h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=2\kappa ^2d^4x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_5(x,y;x^{},0)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }(x^{}).$$
(23)
The final thing that we need to do is to transform the fluctuation back into the coordinate system $`(\overline{x}^\mu ,\overline{y})`$ in which the brane is straight. In order to have a simple final expression for the fluctuation on the brane, we can use the additional freedom in the transformation (12), present in $`\widehat{\xi }^\mu (x)`$, to set,

$$\widehat{\xi }_\mu (x)=_\mu \left(\frac{1}{2k}\widehat{\xi }^y(x)2d^4x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_5(x,0;x^{},0)\widehat{\xi }^y(x^{})\right).$$
(24)
Then from (13) and (23) we obtain our final result for the fluctuation evaluated on the brane:

$$\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }(x,0)=2\kappa ^2d^4x^{}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_5(x,0;x^{},0)\left(S_{\mu \nu }(x^{})\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }S(x^{})\right)\frac{k}{6}\mathrm{\Delta }_4(x,x^{})\eta _{\mu \nu }S(x^{})\right\},$$
(25)
where $`k=A^{}(0)/2`$. Note that in a flat background the last term in (25) would be absent, and the theory is simply that of five-dimensional gravity, as expected.555We thank John Terning for raising this issue. The first term is exactly what one would have naïvely expected, while the second term arises from the effect of the bending of the brane .

Notice that the result (25) is written in terms of the scalar Green’s function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5(x,y;x^{},y^{})`$ for the background (3) which allows us to make contact with the auxiliary quantum mechanical system of . First of all, we relate the coordinate $`z`$ to $`y`$ via

$$\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{A(y)/2}.$$
(26)
The wavefunctions $`\psi _m(z)`$, which satisfy the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{d^2\psi _m}{dz^2}+\left(\frac{9}{16}A^2\frac{3}{4}A^{\prime \prime }\right)\psi _m=m^2\psi _m,$$
(27)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}d/dz`$, and then give the Green’s function that we need in (25). It is expressed as a sum over the bound-states and an integral over the continuum of KK modes:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_5(x,0;x^{},0)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ip(xx^{})}\left\{\underset{m}{}\frac{\psi _m(0)^2}{p^2+m^2}+𝑑m\frac{\psi _m(0)^2}{p^2+m^2}\right\}.$$
(28)
The Schrödinger equation (27) always admits a zero energy state

$$\widehat{\psi }_0(z)=N_0e^{3A(z)/4},$$
(29)
which potentially describes the 4D graviton. In the RS model

$$\widehat{\psi }_0(z)=\frac{k^{1/2}}{(k|z|+1)^{3/2}},$$
(30)
is normalizable and so

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_5(x,0;x^{},0)=k\mathrm{\Delta }_4(x,x^{})+\mathrm{},$$
(31)
where the ellipsis represents the contribution from the KK modes. The contribution of the massless graviton fluctuation in (25) is then,

$$\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }(x,0)=2\kappa ^2kd^4x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_4(x,x^{})\left(S_{\mu \nu }(x^{})\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }S(x^{})\right)+\mathrm{}.$$
(32)
However, this is not the usual propagator of a massless 4D graviton. Fortunately, (32) does not include the effect of the brane bending term in (25), which provides an additional contribution that precisely has the effect of changing $`\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{2}`$ in (32) and so yields the usual massless 4D graviton propagator. So the brane bending effect is crucial even in the original RS model .

In a quasi-localized gravity model, the transverse space is asymptotically flat, i.e. $`A(y)`$ constant for $`|y|y_0`$. In this case, the state $`\widehat{\psi }_0(z)`$ is not normalizable and there are only contributions to the Green’s function from continuum modes. However, in  we argued that if the scale $`y_0`$ is sufficiently large then $`\widehat{\psi }_0(z)`$ appears as a sharp resonance at the bottom of the continuum at $`m=0`$. In this case, we have approximately, for small $`m`$,

$$\psi _m(0)^2=\frac{𝒜}{m^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}+\mathrm{}.$$
(33)
The height of the resonance is given by

$$\frac{𝒜}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}=\widehat{\psi }_0(0)^2=e^{3(A(0)A(\mathrm{}))/2},$$
(34)
while the width, to leading order, can be determined by the fact that as $`y_0\mathrm{}`$, the model should reduce to the RS model where $`\widehat{\psi }_0(z)`$ is normalizable. So as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m0`$, (33) should approximate $`k\delta (m)`$ giving

$$\frac{𝒜}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}=\frac{2k}{\pi }.$$
(35)
In the GRS model (34) and (35) give

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=\frac{2k}{\pi }e^{3ky_0}.$$
(36)
For small, but non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, i.e. large $`y_0k^1`$, the resonance can mimic the effect of the bound-state in the RS model. For $`|xx^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }m^1`$, we can approximate the effect of the resonance by a delta function and hence naïvely we would expect a contribution to the graviton propagator as in (32). However, just as in the RS model itself we have to include the effect of the brane bending. This provides an additional contribution which precisely has the effect of changing $`\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{2}`$ in (32) and yields the usual massless 4D graviton propagator . So the effect of brane bending in the case of quasi-localized gravity on the brane is exactly the same as for the RS model. We recover the normal 4D graviton propagator in the regime where we can ignore the contribution from the rest of the continuum, $`|xx^{}|k^1`$, and when we can approximate the resonance by a delta function, $`|xx^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }m^1`$. The effect of the finite width will give a calculable correction to the graviton propagator that can be determined by integrating over the shape of the resonance, giving

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{h}_{\mu \nu }(x,0)=& 2\kappa ^2kd^4x^{}\{\mathrm{\Delta }_4(x,x^{})(S_{\mu \nu }(x^{})\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }S(x^{}))\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{\Delta }m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_4(x,x^{})(S_{\mu \nu }(x^{})\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }S(x^{}))\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_4(x,x^{})=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ip(xx^{})}}{p^2(p+\mathrm{\Delta }m)}.$$
(38)
We have studied theories in which gravity is quasi-localized to a brane. In these theories there is a massless graviton resonance which eventually decays into the bulk, with the result of altering the very long distance behavior of gravity. It has been suggested that there are phenomenological difficulties with such models as a result of the non-decoupling of massive graviton polarizations in the massless limit. In this letter we have shown that in fact such difficulties are absent. The reason is that the bending of the brane exactly compensates for the effects of the extra polarization in the massive graviton propagator (just as it compensates for the effect of the massless scalar in the case of the RS theory). Thus the graviton propagator at intermediate distances will be equal to the massless propagator of the Einstein theory (up to corrections that can be made arbitrarily small by making the width of the resonance small). Therefore, all classic predictions of general relativity including the bending of light around the Sun and the precession rate of the orbit of Mercury are correctly reproduced in these theories.

Theories with quasi-localized gravity open exciting possibilities for phenomenology. Because gravity is modified at both very short and very long distances in such models, there are phenomenological consequences for both particle physics at high energies and cosmology at large distances. These consequences merit further investigation.

We would like to thank Tanmoy Bhattacharya and John Terning for several useful conversations, and Gia Dvali, Ruth Gregory and Valery Rubakov for comments on the manuscript and for sharing their views on these theories with us. C.C. is an Oppenheimer Fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. C.C., J.E. and T.J.H. are supported by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.