text:
# High-frequency hopping conductivity in the quantum Hall effect regime: Acoustical studies

## I Introduction

It is well known from numerous low-temperature resistivity measurements that the electronic states of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) whose energies are located between two adjacent Landau levels in a perpendicular magnetic field are localized. Consequently, the conductance is determined by electron hopping between the localized states. The hopping mechanism is temperature-dependent. At temperatures 1-4 K, the conductance $`\sigma `$ is usually determined by nearest-neighbor hopping. In this case its temperature dependence is mainly exponential, $`\sigma _{xx}(T)\mathrm{exp}(E/kT)`$ where $`E`$ is the temperature-independent activation energy, see e. g. Refs.  and references therein. (We assume that the 2DEG is located in the $`xy`$ plane, the magnetic field is parallel to the $`𝐳`$-axis, and the electric field is along the $`𝐱`$-axis.) At lower temperatures, $`T1`$ K, the electron hopping distance appears to be greater than the typical distance between nearest neighbors: at such low temperatures it becomes difficult to find a neighbor whose energy is close to the initial one within the accuracy $`kT`$. In this so-called *variable-range-hopping* regime the conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is also exponentially small, but with an effective activation energy $`E`$ which is temperature-dependent.

To clarify the nature of the localized states, we study in this paper the two-dimensional high-frequency (hf) conductance of a 2DEG, $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$, by measuring the velocity and the attenuation of surface acoustic waves (SAW) propagating along the $`x`$-direction nearby the electron layer. Acoustic methods are particularly promising for our task since $`|\sigma _{xx}(\omega )|`$ in the hopping regime may be of the same order of magnitude as the SAW velocity $`V`$. Because the screening of the electric fields produced by the SAW is determined by the ratio $`\sigma _{xx}/V`$, the acoustic properties are sensitive to the variations in $`\sigma _{xx}`$. Furthermore, the attenuation and the velocity of the SAW depend on the *complex* conductance,

$$\sigma _{xx}(\omega )\sigma _1(\omega )i\sigma _2(\omega ),$$

and hence both the active, $`\sigma _1`$, and the reactive, $`\sigma _2`$, components can be detected. The active component can be then compared to the static conductivity, $`\sigma _{\text{dc}}`$. A pronounced difference will clearly indicate that the electron states are localized. We compare the experimental results for $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ with existing models for the dielectric response of localized states and extract relevant parameters of the latter.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II the experimental setup is presented. Experimental results and their discussion are given in Sec. III. They are summarized in Sec. IV. Details of the derivation of the expressions we use are presented in the Appendix.

## II The experimental setup

A sketch of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. A SAW propagating along the surface of a piezoelectric crystal is accompanied by a wave of hf electric field. This electric field penetrates into a 2DEG located in a semiconductor heterostructure mounted on the surface. The field produces electrical currents which, in turn, cause Joule losses. As a result, there are electron-induced contributions both to the SAW attenuation and to its velocity. These effects are governed by the complex frequency-dependent conductivity, $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$, which oscillates as a function of the external magnetic field. Hence, specific oscillations will appear both in the SAW attenuation and its velocity. Under reasonable assumptions, the experimental results allow one to determine $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ as function of the magnetic field and to analyze its properties.

In the present work, the attenuation coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the relative velocity change, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$, are measured as functions of perpendicular magnetic field up to 7 T in the temperature interval 1.5-4.2 K. The Si $`\delta `$-doped GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure samples with sheet densities $`n=(1.32.7)\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and mobilities $`\mu =(12)\times 10^5`$ cm2/V$``$s at T=4.2 K were grown by molecular-beam epitaxy, their structures being shown in Fig. 2.

## III Experimental results and their discussion

The expressions relating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$ to the complex conductance, $`\sigma _1i\sigma _2`$, can be extracted from Refs.  and . They read

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{(dB/cm)}`$ $`=`$ $`4.34AK^2k\gamma ,`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$ $`=`$ $`(AK^2/2)(\delta v/v).`$ (2)
Here $`k=\omega /V`$ is the SAW wave vector, $`K^2`$ is the piezoelectric coupling constant of the substrate (Y-cut LiNbO3), and

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`8b(k)(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _0)\epsilon _0^2\epsilon _se^{2k(a+d)},`$ (3)
$`b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(b_1(k)[b_2(k)b_3(k)]\right)^1,`$ (4)
$`b_1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _0)(\epsilon _s+\epsilon _0)`$ (6)
$`(\epsilon _1\epsilon _0)(\epsilon _s\epsilon _0)e^{(2ka)},`$
$`b_2(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _0)(\epsilon _s+\epsilon _0)`$ (8)
$`+(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _0)(\epsilon _s\epsilon _0)e^{(2kd)},`$
$`b_3(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon _1\epsilon _0)(\epsilon _s\epsilon _0)e^{(2ka)}+(\epsilon _1\epsilon _0)`$ (10)
$`\times (\epsilon _s+\epsilon _0)e^{[2k(a+d)]}.`$
In these equations, $`\epsilon _1`$=50, $`\epsilon _0`$=1 and $`\epsilon _s`$=12 are the dielectric constants of LiNbO3, of the vacuum and of the semiconductor, respectively. $`a`$ is the finite vacuum clearance between the sample surface and the LiNbO3 surface, which can be determined from acoustical measurements. $`d`$ denotes the finite distance between the sample surface and the 2DEG layer. The parameters of our experimental set are $`a=0.5\mu \text{m}`$, $`d=0.59\mu \text{m}`$ for the first sample, and $`0.09\mu \text{m}`$ for the second one. The reduced attenuation $`\gamma `$ and velocity variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$ are given by the expressions

$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2+(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)^2}},\mathrm{\Delta }V/V={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2+(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)^2}};`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=(4\pi \sigma _i/\epsilon _sV)t(k),t(k)=[b_2(k)b_3(k)]/2b_1(k).`$ (12)
The experimental magnetic field dependence of $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$ for the sample with carrier density $`n=2.7\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and mobility $`\mu =2\times 10^5`$ cm2/V$``$ s are shown in Fig. 3. Similar results have been found previously in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures.

The real and the imaginary parts of the complex conductance are derived from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$, using Eqs. (1) and (2). The results obtained for $`T=1.5`$ K and acoustic frequency 30 MHz are shown in Fig. 4.

As can be seen, $`\sigma _2`$ practically vanishes near half-integer filling factors, i. e. when the Fermi level is close to any Landau level. In such regions $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$, as has been shown in Ref. , appears to be close to the static conductivity, $`\sigma _{\text{dc}}`$. These facts indicate that the electron states are indeed extended. With a further increase of the magnetic field the Fermi level leaves the Landau band, a metal-dielectric transition takes place, and the electrons become localized in the randomly fluctuating potential of the charged impurities.

As the Fermi level departs from the Landau level center, $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ becomes clearly larger than $`\sigma _{dc}`$, see Fig. 5. Such a behavior can be qualitatively interpreted as absorption by large clusters (“lakes”) disconnected from each other. Inside each cluster the absorption is determined by the value of $`\sigma _{dc}`$. Since the area occupied by the clusters is less than the area occupied by the infinite cluster at the mobility edge, the effective $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ is less than $`\sigma _{dc}`$ at half-integer $`\nu `$. At the same time, $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ is greater than $`\sigma _{dc}`$ in the same magnetic field because there is no infinite conducting cluster at the Fermi level. The imaginary part, $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ *increases* as the Fermi level departs from the Landau level’s center.

At magnetic fields corresponding to small integer filling factors, when the Fermi level finds itself in-between the adjacent Landau levels, where $`\sigma _{dc}0`$, $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ becomes about an order of magnitude larger than $`\sigma _1`$, see Fig. 6.

Figure 7 depicts the temperature dependences of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ at $`f`$=30 MHz in magnetic fields corresponding to the mid-points of the Hall plateaus. One can see a crossover from a smooth temperature dependence at a strong magnetic field (5.5 T), to a rather steep increase with temperature at weaker fields. Such behavior is compatible with the idea that the conductivity consists of two contributions. The first one is due to the extended states near the adjacent upper Landau level, while the second is coming from the localized states at the Fermi level.  The relative occupation of the extended states increases with increasing temperature because of thermally activated processes. Obviously, this effect is dominant at small magnetic fields.

We now turn to the region of low temperatures and filling factors close to 2, where hopping between the localized states gives the main contribution to dielectric response. To analyze the experimental results we adopt the so-called two-site approximation, according to which an electron hops between states with close energies localized at two different impurity centers. These states form pair complexes which do not overlap. Therefore, they do not contribute to the static conductivity but are important for the ac response.

Being a very simple, the two-site model has been extensively studied, see for a review Refs.  and references therein. In the following we will use the 2D version of the theory.  Some details of the discussion depend on the assumptions regarding both the density of localized states and the relaxation mechanisms of their population. We therefore re-derive the theoretical results in Appendix A.

As is well known , there are two specific contributions to the high-frequency absorption. The first contribution, the so-called resonant, is due to direct absorption of microwave quanta accompanied by inter-level transitions. The second one, the so-called relaxational, or phonon-assisted, is due to phonon-assisted transitions which lead to a lag of the levels populations with respect to the microwave-induced variation in the inter-level spacing. The relative importance of the two mechanisms depends on the frequency $`\omega `$, the temperature $`T`$, as well as on sample parameters. The most important of them is the relaxation rate $`\gamma _0(T)`$ of symmetric pairs with inter-level spacing $`E=kT`$. At $`\omega \sqrt{kT\gamma _0/\mathrm{}}`$ the relaxation contribution to $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ dominates, and only this one will be taken into account. Following the derivation given in Appendix A we obtain

$$\sigma _1=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\frac{g^2\xi ^3\omega e^4}{\epsilon _s}(_T+_\omega /2)^2.$$
(13)
Here $`g`$ is the (constant) single-electron density of states at the Fermi level, $`\xi `$ is the localization length of the electron state, $`_T=\mathrm{ln}J/kT`$, $`J`$ is a typical value of the energy overlap integral which is of the order of the Bohr energy, while $`_\omega =\mathrm{ln}(\gamma _0/\omega )`$. Eq. (13) is valid provided that the logarithmic factors are large. Note that the product $`r_\omega =\xi (_T+_\omega /2)`$ is the distance between the sites forming a hopping pair. Note also that (13) is similar to the result obtained in Ref. , but differs from it by some logarithmic factors and a numerical factor of 1/4.

The analysis of $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ is a bit more complicated because virtual zero-phonon transitions give a comparable contribution. The analysis presented in Appendix A leads to the following expression for the ratio $`\sigma _2(\omega )/\sigma _1(\omega )`$,

$$\frac{\sigma _2}{\sigma _1}=\frac{2_\omega (_T^2+_T_\omega /2+_\omega ^2/12)+4c_T^2_c}{\pi (_T^2+_T_\omega +_\omega ^2/4)}.$$
(14)
Here $`_c=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{}\omega _c/kT)`$, $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency, and $`c1`$ is a numerical factor depending on the density of states in the region between the Landau levels, see Appendix A. Using the estimate for $`\gamma _0`$ from Ref. ,

$$\gamma _0=\frac{4\pi e^2K^2kT}{\epsilon _s\mathrm{}^2V},$$

valid for the piezoelectric relaxation mechanism, as well as other parameters relevant to the present experiment, one concludes that in the hopping regime $`\sigma _2\sigma _1`$. This conclusion agrees with the experimental results obtained for the middles of the Hall plateaus at 5.5 T and 2.7 T and ensures that the conductance mechanism in these regions is indeed hopping.

Given an experimental value for $`\sigma _1`$, one can obtain from Eq. (13) the localization length $`\xi `$ provided that the single-electron density of states, $`g`$, is known for given values of the magnetic field. This quantity has been obtained from the temperature dependence measurements of the thermally-activated dc conductivity.  It has been shown that for small filling factors the density of states in the plateau regions is finite and almost field-independent, see Fig. 8

Using the density of states versus mobility curve from Ref. , obtained for a sample similar to ours, we estimate the density of states as $`g=2.5\times 10^{24}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$erg-1. On the other hand, according to Ref. , the density of states as function of the magnetic field $`H`$ can be expressed by the interpolation formula

$$g(H)=\frac{g_0}{1+\sqrt{\mu H}},$$
(15)
where $`\mu `$ is the mobility of the 2D-electrons while $`g_0=m/(\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$ is the 2D density of states at $`H=0`$. From Eq. (15) we obtain for $`H=5.5`$ T the density of states $`g=1.7\times 10^{24}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$erg-1.

Using the first estimate for the density of states one obtains $`\xi =6.5\times 10^6`$ cm, that is about 1.6 times greater than the spacer thickness, $`l_{\text{sp}}=4\times 10^6cm`$. On the other hand, it is the spacer width which characterizes the random potential correlation length in the 2DEG layer. Hence, this fact contradicts our interpretation of experimental results in terms of pure nearest-neighbor pair hopping.

To solve the discrepancy, we assume that the high-frequency hopping conductivity of the 2DEG channel is shunted by hopping along the doping Si $`\delta `$-layer. This assumption can be substantiated as follows. Let us suppose that at the middle of the Hall plateau $`\sigma _1^{\nu =2}=4\times 10^7`$ Ohm-1 and $`\sigma _2^{\nu =2}=2.4\times 10^6`$ Ohm-1 are entirely determined by the hopping conductivity along the Si $`\delta `$-layer. Such a contribution is only weakly dependent on the magnetic field because the latter is too weak to deform significantly the wave functions of the Si-dopants. Then the contributions to $`\sigma _i`$ associated with the 2DEG channel are just the difference between the experimentally measured $`\sigma _i`$ in a given magnetic field and its value at $`\nu =2`$.

We now analyze the dependence of the differences $`F_1\sigma _1\sigma _1^{\nu =2}`$ and $`F_2\sigma _2\sigma _2^{\nu =2}`$ on the filling factor $`\nu `$. The plots of $`\mathrm{lg}F_i`$ versus $`\nu `$ are shown in Fig. 9. Both curves approach straight lines, and consequently can be extrapolated to $`\nu =2`$. Using this extrapolation we have obtained $`F_1^{\nu =2}=10^8`$ Ohm-1 and $`F_2^{\nu =2}=5\times 10^8`$ Ohm-1. It should be noticed here that the extrapolated values of $`F_i^{\nu =2}`$ are two orders of magnitude smaller than the values of $`\sigma _i^{\nu =2}`$, associated with the hopping along Si-$`\delta `$-layer.

Using the extrapolated values of $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ to extract the 2DEG contributions to $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$, one can calculate the electron localization length at $`\nu =2`$ from Eq. (13). This procedure is corroborated by the fact that the experimental ratio $`F_2/F_1=5`$ is close to the theoretical value 4.2 coming from Eq. (14). The localization length at $`\nu =2`$ obtained in this way is $`\xi =2\times 10^6`$ cm, which is half of the spacer width. This estimate makes realistic the ”two-site model” which we have extensively used. It should be emphasized, however, that from the above value of $`\xi `$ the hopping length $`r_\omega `$ is estimated to be $`1.4\times 10^5`$ cm. Consequently, there is an interplay between hops to the nearest and more remote neighbors. A more rigorous theory for this situation should be worked out. Such a theory should also explain why the magnetic field dependences of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ at the vicinity of $`\nu `$ = 2 appear to be different – the $`\sigma _1(H)`$-dependence is more pronounced than the $`\sigma _2(H)`$-one. According to the two-site model, both are determined by the respective dependence of the localization length on the magnetic field and should be similar. Indeed, their ratio, from Eq. (14), is almost field-independent. It follows from the experimental data that there exists an additional mechanism leading to the pronounced decrease of $`\sigma _2`$ as the Fermi level falls into the extended states region. A probable mechanism is thermal activation of electrons from the Fermi level to the upper Landau band, leading, firstly, to a decrease of the number of pairs responsible for the hopping conductivity, and, secondly to a screening of the electric field amplitude produced by the SAW. We hope to work out a proper quantitative theory in future.

## IV Conclusions

The above analysis leads to the following conclusions:

* At the vicinity of the Hall plateau centers, high-frequency hopping conductance in the 2DEG layer can be effectively shunted by hopping inside the doping $`\delta `$-layer.
* When the shunting effect is properly subtracted, the results appear to be compatible with the nearest neighbor two-site model of hopping conductivity.
* The localization length determined at different magnetic fields (and, consequently, different filling factors) by the above method scales as the magnetic length $`a_H=(\mathrm{}/eH)^{1/2}`$. This agrees with the concept of nearest-neighbor hopping.
* The interpretation of the imaginary part of the conductivity, $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$, appears more complicated. While the magnetic field dependence of the real part of the hf hopping conductivity of 2D electrons seems to be determined by the magnetic field dependence of the localization length – the slope of $`\mathrm{lg}\xi (H)`$, calculated from the values of $`F_1^{\nu =2}(H)`$ using Eq. (13), is close to the slope of $`\mathrm{lg}\xi (H)`$ in Ref.  – the magnetic field dependence of the imaginary part of the $`hf`$ conductivity has been explained so far only qualitatively. A more detailed quantitative analysis, which would include a proper account of the screening of the SAW-induced hf electrical field by both layers, is required.

It is worth emphasizing that the acoustic method used in the present work allows the determination of the localization length near the Hall plateau centers.This is very difficult to achieve using a dc technique.

## V Acknowledgments

The work is supported by RFFI N 98-02-18280, MNTRF N 97-1043 grants and I. L. Drichko was supported by the grant of Research Council of Norway. We are grateful to Ora Entin-Wohlman for reading the manuscript and useful remarks.

## A Derivation of $`\sigma (\omega )`$

The derivations of the complex $`\sigma (\omega )`$ within the two-site approximation have been extensively discussed, see e. g. Refs.  and . However, the resulting formulae differ in some details. These differences are mainly due to different assumptions about the relaxation of the occupation numbers of the localized states. We therefore present here a unified derivation, in order to clarify the various assumptions and notations.

Let us characterize the sites by the single-electron energies $`\phi _{1,2}`$ which would be the actual energies if the Coulomb correlation between the occupation numbers is ignored. The two electron energies, in the absence of quantum hybridization of the states, can be specified by 4 terms,

$$W_0=0,W_1=\phi _1,W_2=\phi _2,W_3=\phi _1+\phi _2+\frac{e^2}{\epsilon _sr}.$$

Here $`r`$ is the distance between the sites. As shown in Ref. , when the frequency $`\omega `$ and the temperature $`T`$ are low enough, such that $`\mathrm{}\omega ,kTe^2/\epsilon _sr`$ only the two terms $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ can be occupied, and we face a situation of a two-level electronic system (TLS). Quantum tunneling hybridizes the two levels, so that the resulting energies are

$$W_\pm =\frac{\phi _1+\phi _2}{2}\pm \frac{E}{2},E=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(r)}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\phi _1\phi _2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ is the energy overlap integral which decays as $`r`$ increases. The effective Hamiltonian corresponding to this situation is

$$_{LR}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }& \mathrm{\Lambda }\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }& \mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _z\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma _x\right).$$
(A1)
Here $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices. Diagonalizing this Hamiltonian we obtain $`_0=(E/2)\sigma _z`$.

The quantities $`\phi _i`$ are random, and their distributions are specified as follows. The “center-of-gravity”, $`(\phi _1+\phi _2)/2`$ is assumed to be uniformly distributed within a band of width $`e^2/\epsilon _sr`$; and the difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _1\phi _2`$, is also assumed to be uniformly distributed within a band much wider than $`kT`$. Since $`d^2r=rdrd\varphi `$ where $`\varphi `$ is the polar angle in the 2DEG plane, we obtain an $`r`$-independent pair distribution function $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta },r,\varphi )=g^2e^2/\epsilon _s`$ where $`g`$ is the (constant) single-electron density of states. It is convenient to change the variables from $`\mathrm{\Delta },r,\varphi `$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda },\varphi `$,

$$𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda },\varphi )=g^2(e^2/\epsilon _s)|dr_\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\mathrm{\Lambda }|,$$
(A2)
where $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the solution of the equation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In the presence of an external ac electric field $`𝐄`$ the pair acquires a dipole moment $`\widehat{𝐝}=e\widehat{𝐫}`$, described by the interaction Hamiltonian $`_i=(𝐄\widehat{𝐝})=e(𝐄\widehat{𝐫})`$. This interaction is added to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the Hamiltonian (A1). In the representation where $`_0`$ is diagonal, the interaction Hamiltonian becomes

$$_{\text{int}}=e(𝐄\widehat{𝐫})\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{E}\sigma _z\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{E}\sigma _x\right).$$
(A3)
The contribution of a pair to the complex $`\sigma (\omega )`$ can be expressed in terms of the complex susceptibility, $`\chi (\omega )=\sigma (\omega )/i\omega `$ which in turn is given by (cf. Ref. )

$`\chi (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi e^4g^2}{\epsilon _s}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }r_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left|dr_\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|}`$ (A5)
$`\times \left[\left(\mathrm{\Delta }/E\right)^2\chi _{zz}(\omega )+\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/E\right)^2\chi _{xx}(\omega )\right].`$
The partial susceptibilities $`\chi _{pq}`$ are given by (cf. Ref. )

$`\chi _{zz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kT\mathrm{cosh}^2(E/2kT)}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma _{}}{\omega +i\gamma _{}}}`$ (A6)
$`\chi _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{2kT}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^1}{\omega E/\mathrm{}+i\gamma }},`$ (A7)
where $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _{}`$ are the proper relaxation rates. $`\chi _{zz}`$ is responsible for the relaxational contribution, while $`\chi _{xx}`$ is responsible for the resonant one.

To continue the calculations one needs to specify the spatial dependence of the overlap integral. Let us assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=Je^{r/\xi }`$, where $`\xi `$ is the localization length. Then, $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\xi \mathrm{ln}(J/\mathrm{\Lambda }),|dr_\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\mathrm{\Lambda }|=\xi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. At the next step, it is convenient to transform the variables from $`\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`E,p=(\mathrm{\Lambda }/E)^2`$, the Jacobian being $`(2p)^1(1p)^{1/2}`$. This results in

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\chi (\omega )}{\chi _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{p\sqrt{1p}}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}}{ϵ\sqrt{p}}}\right)`$ (A9)
$`\times \left[p\chi _{xx}(\omega )+(1p)\chi _{zz}(\omega )\right]`$
where $`\chi _0=\pi e^4g^2\xi ^3kT/2\epsilon _s`$, $`ϵ=E/kT`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{J}=J/kT1`$.

The following analysis will be based on Eq. (A9). It can be easily shown that under the conditions of the present experiment the only important contribution to the dissipative part of the susceptibility, $`Im\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\omega )`$, is the one coming from the relaxational mechanism, $`\chi _{zz}`$. Thus we have,

$`Im\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(ϵ/2)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dp\sqrt{1p}}{p}}`$ (A11)
$`\times \mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}}{ϵ\sqrt{p}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{}\omega }{\omega ^2+\gamma _{}^2}}.`$
An important feature of the relaxation rate $`\gamma _{}`$ is that $`\gamma _{}(ϵ,p)=p\gamma _0(ϵ)`$, see e. g. Ref. . Since we are interested in the case $`\omega \gamma _0`$, we can put $`ϵ=1,p=p_\omega \sqrt{\gamma _0(1)/\omega }`$ in the argument of the logarithm and take the logarithm out of the integrand. As a result,

$$Im\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\pi \left(_T+\frac{1}{2}_\omega \right)^2,$$
(A12)
where $`_T=\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{J}1`$ while $`_\omega =\mathrm{ln}(1/p_\omega )1`$.

The relaxational contribution to the real part can be written as

$`Re\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{zz}(\omega )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(ϵ/2)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dp\sqrt{1p}}{p}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}}{ϵ\sqrt{p}}}\right)`$ (A13)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{}^2}{\omega ^2+\gamma _{}^2}}2{\displaystyle _{p_\omega }^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{p}}(_T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}p)^2`$ (A14)
$`=2_\omega \left(_T^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_T_\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}_\omega ^2\right).`$ (A15)
The contribution from $`\chi _{xx}`$ to the real part of the susceptibility is also important. Putting $`\mathrm{}\omega E`$ we obtain

$`Re\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{ϵ}}\mathrm{tanh}(ϵ/2){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{\sqrt{1p}}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}}{ϵ\sqrt{p}}}\right)`$ (A16)
$``$ $`4_T^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{ϵ}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}\right).`$ (A17)
The last integral diverges logarithmically at its upper limit. That means that the result is substantially dependent on the total structure of the impurity band. Assuming that (i) $`e^2/\epsilon _s\xi _T\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, and (ii) that we are interested in the situation when the Fermi level is in the middle of the gap, we can replace for a very crude estimate

$$g^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dϵ}{ϵ}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{ϵ}{2}\right)\text{by}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dϵ}{ϵ}g^2(ϵ)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{ϵ}{2}\right).$$

According to certain experimental evidence, the density of localized states within the gap is a weak function of the energy. Then an estimate for the above integral can be written as $`cg^2_c`$ where $`_c=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{}\omega _c/kT)`$, while $`c1`$ is a correction factor due to energy dependence of the density of states. As a result, we obtain

$$Re\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{xx}4c_T^2_c.$$
(A18)
Since $`Re\sigma /Im\sigma =Im\chi /Re\chi `$ we obtain Eq. (14).


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Gravitational Couplings of Intrinsic Spin

Bahram Mashhoon

Department of Physics and Astronomy

University of Missouri-Columbia

Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA

Abstract

The gravitational couplings of intrinsic spin are briefly reviewed. A consequence of the Dirac equation in the exterior gravitational field of a rotating mass is considered in detail, namely, the difference in the energy of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle polarized vertically up and down near the surface of a rotating body is $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Here $`\theta `$ is the latitude and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2GJ/(c^2R^3)`$, where $`J`$ and $`R`$ are, respectively, the angular momentum and radius of the body. It seems that this relativistic quantum gravitational effect could be measurable in the foreseeable future.

1 Introduction

About forty years ago, Kobzarev and Okun  considered the theoretical possibility that a nuclear particle may possess a gravitoelectric dipole moment. This would lead to a violation of the equivalence principle through an interaction of the form $`H_{\mathrm{int}}=A𝝈𝐠`$, where $`A`$ is an amplitude, $`𝝈`$ is the particle spin and g is the gravitational acceleration due to a massive body such as the Earth. Similar spin-gravitoelectric couplings of the form $`f(r)𝝈\widehat{𝐫}`$ have been considered by a number of authors in connection with the possible breakdown of parity and time reversal invariance in gravitation . Leitner and Okubo used the hyperfine splitting of the ground state of hydrogen to set an upper limit on the strength of such an interaction . Meanwhile, Dabbs et al.  studied the free fall of neutrons polarized vertically up and down in the gravitational field of the Earth and found no splitting in the gravitational acceleration greater than a few percent of $`g`$. However, a few years later observational evidence was reported for the gravitoelectric dipole moment of the proton . This was soon shown to be spurious by the experiments of Vasil’ev  and Young . In particular, Young  placed an upper limit of 0.3 Hz on the gravity shift of the proton Larmor frequency in 1969. Finally, a significant upper limit of $`10^4`$ Hz was placed on a possible shift of the deuteron Larmor frequency due to the Earth’s gravitational field by Wineland and Ramsey  in 1972.

In 1989, the observation of an anomalous difference in the weight of mechanical gyroscopes rotating vertically upward and downward was reported . Again, the existence of such a rotor weight change was soon contradicted by subsequent experiments .

The observational search for the role of intrinsic spin in the gravitational interaction as well as the spacetime torsion has continued and many significant experiments have been performed \[10-16\]. These experiments have also explored finite-range axionlike interactions, which could be of the $`\widehat{𝐫}𝝈`$ (“monopole-dipole”) form as well as a linear combination of $`𝝈_A𝝈_B`$ and $`\widehat{𝐫}𝝈_A\widehat{𝐫}𝝈_B`$ (“dipole-dipole”) form, and have placed useful restrictions on the parameters of such interactions. Indeed, the past few decades have witnessed the emergence of extremely precise measurement techniques  that make it possible to detect frequency shifts of order $`10^9`$ Hz, an improvement of five orders of magnitude over what was possible three decades ago .

The aim of the present paper is to discuss the gravitomagnetic coupling of intrinsic spin due to the fact that according to the standard theory a spinning particle possesses a gravitomagnetic dipole moment. This moment couples to the gravitomagnetic field of a rotating mass (such as the Earth) in complete analogy with the $`𝝁𝐁`$ interaction in electrodynamics. Instead of treating the Dirac equation in the exterior gravitational field of a rotating mass, a heuristic derivation of this general interaction is given in sections 2 and 3 on the basis of the gravitational Larmor theorem. For a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle near the surface of the Earth, the effect involves a frequency shift of order $`10^{14}`$ Hz. Section 4 contains a brief discussion of the prospects for the measurement of this relativistic quantum gravitational effect.

2 Inertia of Intrinsic Spin

Imagine an observer in a laboratory on the Earth using Earth-based coordinate axes to describe the results of measurements. The particles involved in the experiments on the rotating Earth are waves propagating in inertial spacetime and it is natural to assume that they would keep their polarization aspects fixed in the underlying inertial frame. As measured by the observer, however, such intrinsic spin must “precess” in a sense opposite to the sense of rotation of the Earth. The Hamiltonian associated with such motion would be of the form $`H=𝝈𝛀`$, where $`𝛀`$ is the frequency of rotation of the laboratory frame. The existence of such a Hamiltonian would show that intrinsic spin has rotational inertia. In quantum mechanics, mass and spin characterize the irreducible unitary representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. The inertial properties of mass are well known in classical mechanics through various translational and rotational acceleration effects. In quantum mechanics, the inertial properties of mass have been experimentally investigated by a number of authors . It is therefore interesting to consider the inertial properties of spin .

The coupling of intrinsic spin with rotation indicated above may be illustrated by a simple example. Imagine an observer rotating counterclockwise with uniform frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ about the direction of propagation of a plane linearly polarized monochromatic electromagnetic wave of frequency $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. For instance, the observer could be in an Earth-based laboratory and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ would then be the frequency of the proper rotation of the Earth. We neglect gravitational effects in this section and consider all phenomena in a global inertial frame in Minkowski spacetime. Let the observer move on a circle of radius $`r`$ with speed $`c\beta =r\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the $`(x,y)`$ plane of the inertial frame and let the electric field of the wave be given by the real part of

$$𝐄=E_0\widehat{𝐱}e^{i\omega t+ikz},$$
(1)
where $`E_0`$ is a constant amplitude, $`𝐤=k\widehat{𝐳}`$ is the wave vector and $`\omega =ck`$. ¿From the viewpoint of the rotating observer, the direction of linear polarization that is fixed in the inertial frame must drift in a clockwise sense about the direction of propagation, i.e.

$$𝐄=E_0\left(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t\widehat{𝐱}^{}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t\widehat{𝐲}^{}\right)e^{i\omega t+ikz},$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{𝐱}^{}=\widehat{𝐱}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t+\widehat{𝐲}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,\widehat{𝐲}^{}=\widehat{𝐱}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t+\widehat{𝐲}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ and $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}=\widehat{𝐳}`$ denote the Cartesian coordinate axes in the rotating frame of the observer. Specifically, the two coordinate systems are related by a simple rotation such that

$$\widehat{𝐱}+i\widehat{𝐲}=e^{\pm i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\left(\widehat{𝐱}^{}\pm i\widehat{𝐲}^{}\right).$$
(3)
The linearly polarized wave (1) is a coherent superposition of a right circularly polarized (RCP) wave and a left circularly polarized (LCP) wave, i.e.

$$𝐄=\frac{1}{2}E_0\left(\widehat{𝐱}+i\widehat{𝐲}\right)e^{i\omega t+ikz}+\frac{1}{2}E_0\left(\widehat{𝐱}i\widehat{𝐲}\right)e^{i\omega t+ikz}.$$
(4)
From the viewpoint of the rotating observer, these eigenstates of the radiation field remain invariant,

$$𝐄=\frac{1}{2}E_0\left(\widehat{𝐱}^{}+i\widehat{𝐲}^{}\right)e^{i(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })t+ikz}+\frac{1}{2}E_0\left(\widehat{𝐱}^{}i\widehat{𝐲}^{}\right)e^{i(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })t+ikz},$$
(5)
except that the frequency of the RCP component is perceived to be $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ while that of the LCP wave is perceived to be $`\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to inertial time $`t`$. The proper time of the observer is, however, $`\tau =t/\gamma `$, where $`\gamma =\left(1\beta ^2\right)^{1/2}`$. Thus we find that the proper frequencies measured by the observer are

$$\omega ^{}=\gamma (\omega \mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(6)
Here the Lorentz factor accounts for time dilation, which is all that should happen according to the transverse Doppler effect. Instead, we have in (6) the additional “angular Doppler terms” $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that have the following physical origin: In an RCP (LCP) wave, the electric and magnetic fields rotate in the positive (negative) sense about the direction of propagation with frequency $`\omega `$. Since the observer rotates in the positive sense with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it perceives the effective frequency of the RCP (LCP) wave to be $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })`$. In the JWKB limit, $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ and the “angular Doppler terms” disappear since $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 0`$. Our heuristic treatment ignores certain relativistic corrections that are not essential for the purposes of this discussion. Writing equation (6) in terms of the photon energy as $`E^{}=\gamma (E\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega })`$, we see that the deviation from the simple transverse Doppler effect is due to the coupling of the spin of a circularly polarized photon to the rotation of the observer, since a RCP (LCP) photon carries an intrinsic spin of $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{})`$ along its direction of propagation . These elementary considerations already contain the basic aspects of the phenomenon of spin-rotation coupling, as can be seen from the following discussion based on the theory of relativity .

The special theory of relativity consists of two main elements: the principle of relativity (i.e. Lorentz invariance) and the hypothesis of locality. The latter specifies what an accelerated observer measures by establishing a connection between the accelerated observer and an inertial observer. Indeed, it requires that an accelerated observer be at each instant locally equivalent to a momentarily comoving inertial observer. This is a nontrivial axiom since there exist definite acceleration scales of time and length that are associated with an accelerated observer. In the case under consideration, e.g., the acceleration length of the rotating observer is $`=c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the corresponding temporal scale is $`/c=\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$. Moreover, an elementary application of the hypothesis of locality would imply that $`\omega ^{}=\gamma \omega `$ by the transverse Doppler effect, since the connection between the instantaneous inertial frame of the accelerated observer and our global inertial frame simply results in the standard Doppler and aberration formulas with a time-dependent velocity $`c𝜷(t)`$. On the other hand, it should be clear that to measure wave characteristics such as the frequency, one must observe at least a few periods of the oscillations of the wave before a determination of the frequency becomes even possible. In this way, the curvature of the observer’s worldline would have to be taken into consideration, and hence the standard Doppler and aberration formulas of relativity theory are valid only to the extent that the period of the wave $`T=2\pi /\omega `$ is negligible compared to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }T=2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 0`$. In view of these remarks, it is therefore natural to apply the locality axiom only to the electromagnetic field; then, the measured field could be Fourier analyzed – which is a nonlocal operation – to obtain the frequency and wave vector content of the field in the accelerated frame. This is indeed the physical basis for the extension of relativistic wave equations to accelerated systems; in fact, this extended hypothesis of locality for wave phenomena is equivalent to the assumption of minimal coupling. Using this approach, one finds that for $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, the standard Doppler and aberration formulas should be modified to

$$\omega ^{}=\gamma (\omega c𝜷𝐤)\gamma \widehat{𝐇}𝛀,$$
(7)
$$𝐤^{}=𝐤+(\gamma 1)(\widehat{𝜷}𝐤)\widehat{𝜷}\frac{1}{c}\gamma \omega 𝜷+\frac{1}{c}\gamma (\widehat{𝐇}𝛀)𝜷,$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{𝐇}=\pm c𝐤/\omega `$ is the unit helicity vector. One can then consider optical interferometry in a rotating frame that would be based on the spin of the photon in contrast to the Sagnac effect that is connected to its orbital angular momentum .

The general expression for spin-rotation coupling can be written as

$$E^{}=\gamma (E\mathrm{}M\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(9)
where $`M`$ is the total (orbital plus spin) “magnetic” quantum number along the axis of rotation; that is, $`M=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ for a scalar or a vector field while $`M\frac{1}{2}=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ for a Dirac field. In the JWKB approximation, equation (9) can be written as $`E^{}=\gamma (E𝛀𝐉)`$, where $`𝐉=𝐋+𝐒=𝐫\times 𝐏+𝐒`$. Thus $`E^{}=\gamma (E𝐯𝐏)\gamma 𝐒𝛀`$, so that in the absence of intrinsic spin we recover the classical expression for the energy of a particle as measured in the rotating frame with $`𝐯=𝛀\times 𝐫`$. The energy and momentum of a spinning particle as measured by an accelerated observer are then

$$E^{}=\gamma (E𝐯𝐏𝐒𝛀),$$
(10)
$$𝐏^{}=𝐏+(\gamma 1)(𝐏\widehat{𝜷})\widehat{𝜷}\frac{1}{c}\gamma E𝜷+\frac{1}{c}\gamma (𝐒𝛀)𝜷,$$
(11)
using the same JWKB approach as in the derivation of equations (7) - (8). It follows that

$$E^2c^2P^2=m^2c^42E(\text{S}𝛀)+(𝐒𝛀)^2.$$
(12)
These results reduce to the equations appropriate for light once we set $`E=\mathrm{}\omega ,𝐏=\mathrm{}𝐤,𝐒=\mathrm{}\widehat{𝐇}`$ and $`m=0`$.

Experimental evidence for helicity-rotation coupling exists in the microwave and optical regimes via the phenomenon of frequency shift of polarized radiation . Moreover, there is observational evidence for the coupling of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles with the rotation of the Earth . The analogous gravitational coupling of intrinsic spin is considered in the next section.

3 Spin-Gravitomagnetic Coupling

To extend the physics of spin-rotation coupling to the gravitational field, one must resort to Einstein’s heuristic principle of equivalence. It is possible to interpret this principle in the post-Newtonian approximation via the gravitational Larmor theorem . Newton’s law of gravitation is formally analogous to Coulomb’s law of electricity; therefore, one may describe Newtonian gravitational effects in terms of a gravitoelectric field. The classical tests of general relativity are all due to post-Newtonian gravitoelectric corrections. However, any consistent framework that brings Newtonian gravitation and Lorentz invariance together must of necessity contain a gravitomagnetic field that would be due to mass current. A direct measurement of the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth via the precession of superconducting gyroscopes in a polar orbit about the Earth is one of the goals of the Stanford gyroscope experiment (GP-B) planned for 2001.

In the linear approximation of general relativity, where gravitational effects are treated as linear perturbations in a global inertial frame in Minkowski spacetime, one can express the gravitational field equations as Maxwell’s equations for the gravitoelectric field $`𝐄_g`$ and the gravitomagnetic field $`𝐁_g`$ once $`O(c^4)`$ terms are neglected in the post-Newtonian metric perturbations . Specifically, we let $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric and for the linear perturbation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ we define $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }h_\alpha ^\alpha `$. Then $`\overline{h}^{00}=4\varphi _g/c^2,\overline{h}^{0i}=2A_g^i/c^2`$ and $`\overline{h}^{ij}=O(c^4)`$. Here $`\varphi _g(t,𝐱)`$ is the gravitoelectric potential and $`𝐀_g(t,𝐱)`$ is the gravitomagnetic vector potential. That is, of the ten effective gravitational potentials $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ in general relativity, we neglect the six spatial potentials $`\overline{h}_{ij}`$ as these are of $`O(c^4)`$ for nonrelativistic (astronomical) sources and from the remaining four potentials one can construct a consistent theory of gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) in this approximation scheme. Let us note that $`\overline{h}^{0\mu }=2c^2(2\varphi _g,𝐀_g)`$, so that the Lorentz gauge condition $`\overline{h}_{,\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0`$ reduces in this case to

$$\frac{2}{c}\frac{\varphi _g}{t}+\mathbf{}𝐀_g=0.$$
(13)
Thus $`A^\mu =(2\varphi _g,𝐀_g)`$ is the effective GEM potential and the spacetime metric is given by

$$ds^2=c^2\left(1\frac{2\varphi _g}{c^2}\right)dt^2\frac{4}{c}\left(𝐀_gd𝐱\right)dt+\left(1+\frac{2\varphi _g}{c^2}\right)\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(14)
The analogy with electrodynamics turns out to be exact, except for the fact that the ratio of the gravitomagnetic charge to the gravitoelectric charge is two, $`q_B/q_E=2`$; that is, linear gravity is a spin-2 field in contrast to the spin-1 character of the electromagnetic field that implies $`q_B/q_E=1`$ for the Maxwell theory.

In electrodynamics, Larmor established a theorem regarding the local equivalence of magnetism and rotation for all charged particles with the same charge-to-mass ratio $`q/m`$. In fact, the electromagnetic field can be locally replaced by an accelerated frame with translational acceleration $`𝐚_L=(q/m)𝐄`$ and rotational (Larmor) frequency $`𝝎_L=q𝐁/(2mc)`$. In electrodynamics, $`q/m`$ can be positive, zero or negative; however, the gravitational charge-to-mass ratio is universal due to the experimentally well-tested equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses. This leads directly to Einstein’s principle of equivalence and hence a geometric theory of gravitation. Einstein’s heuristic principle of equivalence traditionally involves the local equivalence of the gravitoelectric field with the translational acceleration of the “Einstein elevator” in Minkowski spacetime. The interpretation of Einstein’s principle in terms of the gravitational Larmor theorem would then involve, in addition, the local equivalence of the gravitomagnetic field with the Larmor rotation of the elevator as well.

Let us consider the exterior field of an almost spherical rotating astronomical body (such as the Earth) with GEM potentials

$$\varphi _g\frac{GM}{r},𝐀_g\frac{G}{c}\frac{𝐉\times 𝐫}{r^3},$$
(15)
where $`M`$ is the mass and $`J`$ is the angular momentum of the source. These potentials can be obtained from the electromagnetic analogy by assuming that the source has positive gravitoelectric charge $`Q_E=M`$ and gravitomagnetic charge $`Q_B=2M`$. The GEM fields are then

$$𝐄_g=\mathbf{}\varphi _g\frac{1}{2c}\frac{}{t}𝐀_g,𝐁_g=\mathbf{}\times 𝐀_g.$$
(16)
The motion of test particles in the gravitational field of a rotating mass can be obtained from the Lorentz force law if we assume that for a test particle of inertial mass $`m`$ the gravitational charges are negative, i.e. $`q_E=m`$ and $`q_B=2m`$, in order to take due account of the dominant gravitational attraction between the test particle and the source. It turns out that an ideal test gyroscope at rest outside the rotating source undergoes gravitomagnetic precession

$$\frac{d𝐒}{dt}=𝛀_P\times 𝐒$$
(17)
with frequency

$$𝛀_P=\frac{1}{c}𝐁_g=\frac{GJ}{c^2r^3}\left[3\left(\widehat{𝐫}\widehat{𝐉}\right)\widehat{𝐫}\widehat{𝐉}\right].$$
(18)
Imagine now that we replace the gravitomagnetic field by a rotating frame in the neighborhood of the gyroscope. As referred to observers at rest in the rotating frame, the motion of the gyroscope would be the same as before if the observers rotate with Larmor frequency $`𝝎_L=𝛀_P`$. This relation is consistent with the Larmor formula $`𝝎_L=q𝐁/(2mc)`$ once we set $`q_B=2m`$ and $`𝐁_g=c𝛀_P`$ as in equation (18). Thus a consistent and complete gravitoelectromagnetic formalism can be developed along these lines .

In particular, the spin-rotation coupling can be extended to gravitomagnetism via the Larmor theorem with $`𝝎_L=𝛀_P`$. That is, the interaction of intrinsic spin with the gravitomagnetic field is given by the Hamiltonian $`H=𝝈𝛀_P`$, since this interaction in the Larmor frame would be $`H=𝝈𝝎_L`$ as described in section 2. Moreover, the Heisenberg equations of motion for the spin-gravity interaction $`H=𝝈𝛀_P`$ are formally the same as equations (17) - (18) for the precession of an ideal test gyroscope.

In classical electrodynamics, the magnetic dipole moment for a particle of mass $`m`$ and charge $`q`$ is given by $`𝝁=q𝐒/(2mc)`$, where $`𝐒`$ is its orbital angular momentum. The energy associated with the interaction of this magnetic moment with a magnetic field $`𝐁`$ is $`𝝁𝐁`$. Extending these notions to GEM with $`q_B=2m`$, we find that a gravitomagnetic dipole moment for a gyroscope of spin $`𝐒`$ is $`𝝁_g=𝐒/c`$ and the energy of interaction with a gravitomagnetic field is $`𝝁_g𝐁_g=𝐒𝛀_P`$. A further extension of this result to the intrinsic spin of particles naturally leads to the interaction Hamiltonian $`H=𝝈𝛀_P`$. The gravitoelectric analog of this interaction has already been discussed in section 1; that is, $`H_{\mathrm{int}}=𝐝_g𝐄_g`$, where $`𝐝_g=A𝝈`$ would be the hypothetical gravitoelectric dipole moment of a particle  and $`𝐄_g=𝐠`$ from (15) and (16).

Let us imagine an experiment in a laboratory near the surface of an astronomical body (such as the Earth) involving the difference in the energy of a particle of spin $`\sigma =s\mathrm{}`$ polarized vertically up and down (i.e. perpendicular to the surface). According to the spin-gravitomagnetic coupling, the result is

$$E_+E_{}=2s\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(19)
Here $`\theta `$ is the geographic latitude (i.e. $`E_+=E_{}`$ at the equator) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the effective frequency associated with the gravitomagnetic field

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2GJ}{c^2R^3},$$
(20)
where $`R`$ is the mean radius of the body. Equation (19) expresses a relativistic quantum gravitational effect; indeed, one can write $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }=(2cJ/R^3)L_P^2`$, where $`L_P=(\mathrm{}G/c^3)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck length. Let us note that for the Earth $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_E2\times 10^{29}\mathrm{eV}`$, while near the surface of Jupiter $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_J10^{27}\mathrm{eV}`$; similarly, for the Sun $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_S10^{27}\mathrm{eV}`$, but for a neutron star $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{NS}10^{14}\mathrm{eV}`$.

It is important to point out that the spin-rotation-gravity coupling has appeared in the work of many authors who have studied wave equations in accelerated systems and gravitational fields . In particular, the $`𝝈𝛀_P`$ interaction under scrutiny in this work first appeared in the work of de Oliveira and Tiomno . The observation of wave phenomena associated with such couplings was first independently investigated in connection with possible limitations of the general theory of relativity in . Dynamics in electromagnetic fields can be generated by the transformation of the momentum via $`p_\mu p_\mu (q/c)A_\mu `$, where $`A_\mu =(\varphi ,𝐀)`$ is the EM potential. The same holds in the GEM case, except that the analog of $`A_\mu `$ is $`(2\varphi _g,𝐀_g)`$. Let us consider, for instance, the motion of electromagnetic waves in the exterior field of a rotating mass. The effective gravitational charge in this case should be determined based on the fact that a photon of energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ in “cyclotron” motion has an effective inertial mass of $`\mathrm{}\omega /c^2`$ and hence the effective GEM charges are $`q_E=\mathrm{}\omega /c^2`$ and $`q_B=2\mathrm{}\omega /c^2`$. The eigenvalue problem in gravitomagnetic fields leads to discreteness properties for the modes reminiscent of the Fock-Darwin-Landau levels in a magnetic field. Imagine, for instance, the motion of electromagnetic waves in a gravitomagnetic field characterized by the magnitude of the effective “cyclotron” frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c2GJ/(c^2r^3)`$. It follows from the explicit solution of Maxwell’s equations in this background  that the wave functions are proportional to Hermite polynomials. These polynomials vary over a harmonic characteristic lengthscale $`l_g`$ that is given by

$$l_g=\frac{c}{(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_c)^{1/2}}$$
(21)
for an electromagnetic mode of frequency $`\omega `$. If in this equation we set $`\mathrm{}\omega =mc^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ = cyclotron frequency in a magnetic field, we recover the magnetic length that is well known in the discussion of the motion of a charged particle of mass $`m`$ in a magnetic field. It is interesting to note that the gravitomagnetic acceleration length is given by $`_g=c/\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$, so that the gravitomagnetic length (21) is the geometric mean of the reduced wavelength of radiation $`\mathrm{¯}\lambda `$ and $`_g`$. The gravitomagnetic length $`l_g`$ is essentially the same as the radius of the “cyclotron” orbit for a mode with frequency equal to the “cyclotron” frequency ($`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$). The eigenvalue spectrum clearly shows the existence of a gravitomagnetic coupling between the photon spin and the rotation of the source . One can show that in the eikonal approximation the gravitational helicity-rotation coupling leads to a differential deflection of polarized radiation thus violating the universality of free fall in a gravitational field beyond the geometric optics limit . That the spin-gravity interaction violates the universality of free fall is already apparent from $`H=𝝈𝛀_P`$, since this Hamiltonian depends only on the spin of the particle and is independent of its mass.

Imagine, for instance, the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a black hole (i.e. pure geometry free of matter). For a Schwarzschild black hole, the scattering amplitude is independent of the polarization of the incident radiation, hence the polarization properties of the radiation are preserved in the scattering process. For a Kerr black hole, however, the scattering amplitude is dependent upon the polarization of the incident radiation. It is possible to give only rough and partial estimates for the motion of wave packets in a gravitomagnetic field . The influence of helicity-rotation coupling on the gravitational deflection of electromagnetic radiation is rather weak and far below the existing observational upper limits , but could become important in future microlensing experiments with polarized radiation. To provide useful astrophysical estimates of the resulting polarization-dependent deflection of radiation, an eikonal approach has been developed for the motion of rays based on equations (7) and (8), i.e. $`\omega (𝐫,𝐤)=ck\pm \widehat{𝐤}𝛀_P(𝐫)`$, so that the Einstein deflection is ignored for the sake of simplicity and only the helicity-rotation coupling is taken into account . In this treatment, the total differential deflection of positive and negative helicity rays approaching the source together from asymptotic infinity and traveling to infinity after deflection vanishes in contrast to what is expected from the wave treatment; however, it is possible to obtain useful estimates for radiation originating near the source. For instance, consider radiation originating over a pole and propagating normal to the rotation axis with an impact parameter $`D`$; then, RCP and LCP waves separate by a total angle of $`\delta 4\mathrm{¯}\lambda GJ/(c^3D^3)`$ about the average Einstein deflection angle. A qualitative description of this effect is given in . The gravitomagnetic splitting $`\delta `$ is small; it amounts to about one milliarcsecond for GHz radio waves passing over a pole of a neutron star. In addition to this splitting, one expects a wavelength-independent gravitomagnetic rotation of the plane of polarization along a ray, i.e. the Skrotskii effect that is the gravitational analog of the Faraday effect . Moreover, the difference in the arrival times of positive and negative helicity radiation originating near a rotating mass and propagating freely outward to a distant point is estimated to be $`T_+T_{}=2\mathrm{¯}\lambda G𝐉𝐫/(c^4r^3)`$, where $`𝐫`$ is the position vector of the point of origin of the radiation relative to the center of the rotating source. This differential time delay due to the different phase speeds of RCP and LCP waves is too small to be measurable at present .

The violation of the universality of free fall is a wave effect, so that it vanishes in the $`\mathrm{¯}\lambda /_g0`$ limit. Consider, for instance, a spinning particle in a gravitomagnetic field with the interaction Hamiltonian $`H=𝝈𝛀_P`$. This potential energy is position dependent; therefore, there exists a gravitomagnetic Stern-Gerlach force $`𝐅=\mathbf{}H`$ acting on the particle that is independent of mass and hence violates the universality of the gravitational acceleration. Specifically,

$$𝐅=\frac{3GJ}{c^2r^4}\left\{[5(𝝈\widehat{𝐫})(\widehat{𝐉}\widehat{𝐫})𝝈\widehat{𝐉}]\widehat{𝐫}(𝝈\widehat{𝐫})\widehat{𝐉}(\widehat{𝐉}\widehat{𝐫})𝝈\right\},$$
(22)
so that the weight operator for the particle $`W=mg𝐅\widehat{𝐫}`$ is given by $`W=mg3H/r`$. If the spin is polarized vertically up or down in a laboratory near the Earth,

$$W_\pm =mg\frac{3s}{R}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(23)
so that $`W_\pm =mg(1ϵ`$), where $`ϵ`$ can be expressed as

$$ϵ=6s\left(\frac{I}{MR^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{mc^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(24)
Here $`J=I\omega `$, $`I`$ is the moment of inertia and $`\omega `$ is the proper rotation frequency of the Earth. For a neutron near the Earth’s surface, $`\mathrm{}\omega /(m_nc^2)5\times 10^{29}`$; hence, $`ϵ`$ is too small to be measurable in the foreseeable future. It follows that for polarized materials the relevant $`ϵ`$ is expected to be even smaller. Let us note that $`ϵ`$ is directly proportional to $`\mathrm{}\omega /(mc^2)`$, which can be expressed as the ratio of the Compton wavelength of the particle ($`\mathrm{}/mc`$) to the rotational acceleration length of the observer ($`c/\omega `$). Indeed, the extended nature of the particle makes it possible for its intrinsic spin to couple to the spacetime curvature resulting in the force $`𝐅`$ that has an exact analog in the classical Mathisson-Papapetrou spin-curvature force .

We have thus far discussed the gravitomagnetic spin-rotation coupling in terms of a single rotating source such as the Earth. However, the universality of the gravitational interaction implies that the whole mass-energy content of the universe is involved in every physical experiment via the gravitational interaction. In classical physics, the gravitational force of the rest of the universe enters only through its gradients, which turn out to be rather small for experiments in the solar system. The situation is in general different in quantum physics, however. For instance, in the calculation of the spin-gravity coupling, the gravitomagnetic field generated by the total mass-energy current must be taken into account. This is a difficult problem; however, to get some idea of what is involved here we may use the linear approximation to write the interaction Hamiltonian as

$$H=\frac{G}{c^2}\underset{a}{}\frac{3(𝐫_a𝐉_a)(𝐫_a𝝈)r_a^2(𝐉_a𝝈)}{r_a^5},$$
(25)
where the sum is over all astronomical sources and $`𝐫_a=𝐱_a𝐱`$ is the vector of relative separation between the particle of spin $`𝝈`$ at $`𝐱`$ and the center of mass of the source $`a`$. Equation (25) can be expressed as $`H=c(𝝈_𝐱)\mathrm{\Phi }_g`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_g=\frac{G}{c^3}\underset{a}{}\frac{𝐉_a𝐫_a}{r_a^3}$$
(26)
is the net dimensionless scalar gravitomagnetic potential defined by $`𝐁_g=c^2\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }_g`$. For a laboratory experiment near the Earth, it is simple to show that the net contribution due to the Sun, the Moon and the other planets is negligible. Therefore, to compute $`\mathrm{\Phi }_g`$ one must investigate the cosmic mass-current distribution. This is a difficult observational problem and much remains unknown regarding the distribution of angular momentum in the universe. It is likely that over the largest scales no preferred sense of rotation would be discernible. These considerations lead one to surmise that near the Earth (or Jupiter) the main contribution to the Hamiltonian is simply due to the Earth (or Jupiter), though a completely satisfactory resolution is not available. Conversely, observational data regarding the gravitomagnetic spin-rotation coupling could in principle set limits on the cosmic mass-current distribution.

4 Discussion

The gravitational coupling of intrinsic spin with rotation has been described in this work and the consequences of the gravitomagnetic interaction $`H=𝝈𝛀_P`$ have been pointed out. In particular, the gravitomagnetic shift in the Larmor frequency of a nuclear particle has been estimated. Efforts are under way to improve the sensitivity of measurement of such frequency shifts by several orders of magnitude. This could potentially make the effect measurable near the surface of Jupiter . Let us recall that for Jupiter $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_J10^{27}\mathrm{eV}`$, corresponding to a gravitomagnetic Larmor shift of about $`3\times 10^{13}\mathrm{Hz}`$. In view of the current interest in planetary exploration, it appears that the gravitomagnetic coupling of intrinsic spin with rotation could be measurable in the foreseeable future.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Friedrich Hehl and Michael Romalis for helpful discussions and correspondence.

References

 Kobzarev I Yu and Okun LB 1963 JETP 16 1343

 Leitner J and Okubo S 1964 Phys. Rev. B 136 1542
Hari Dass ND 1976 Phys. Rev. Lett. 36 393
Peres A 1978 Phys. Rev. D 18 2739
Morgan TA and Peres A 1962 Phys. Rev. Lett. 9 79

 Dabbs JWT, Harvey JA, Paya D and Horstmann H 1965 Phys. Rev. B 139 756

 Velyukhov GE 1968 JETP Lett. 8 229

 Vasil’ev BV 1969 JETP Lett. 9 175

 Young BA 1969 Phys. Rev. Lett. 22 1445

 Wineland DJ and Ramsey NF 1972 Phys. Rev. A 5 821

 Hayasaka H and Takeuchi S 1989 Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 2701

 Faller JE, Hollander WJ, Nelson PG and McHugh MP 1990 Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 825
Quinn TJ and Picard A 1990 Nature 343 732
Nitschke JM and Wilmarth PA 1990 Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 2115

 Adelberger EG, Heckel BR, Stubbs CW and Rogers WF 1991 Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 41 269

 Wineland DJ et al. 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 1735

 Venema BJ et al. 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 135

 Ritter RC, Winkler LI and Gillies GT 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 701

 Berglund CJ et al. 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 1879; Youdin AN et al. 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 2170

 Ni W-T et al. 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 2439
Chui TCP and Ni W-T 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 3247

 Vorobyov PV and Gitarts Ya I 1988 Phys. Lett. B 208 146
Bobrakov VF et al. 1991 JETP Lett. 53 294
Vorob’ev PV 1994 JETP Lett. 59 510

 Jacobs JP et al. 1995 Phys. Rev. A 52 3521

 Werner SA, Staudenmann J-L and Colella R 1979 Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 1103
Rauch H and Werner SA 2000 Neutron Interferometry (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
Atwood DK, Horne MA, Shull CG and Arthur J 1984 Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 1673
Bonse U and Wroblewski T 1983 Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 1401
Hasselbach F and Nicklaus M 1993 Phys. Rev. A 48 143
Moorhead GF and Opat GI 1996 Class. Quantum Grav. 13 3129
Schwab K, Bruckner N and Packard RE 1997 Nature 386 585
Gustavson TL, Bouyer P and Kasevich MA 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 2046

 Mashhoon B 1995 Phys. Lett. A 198 9
Mashhoon B, Neutze R, Hannam M and Stedman GE 1998 Phys. Lett. A 249 161

 Beth RA 1936 Phys. Rev. 50 115

 Mashhoon B 1988 Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 2639; 1992 ibid. 68 3812
Mashhoon B 1989 Phys. Lett. A 139 103
Mashhoon B 1990 Phys. Lett. A 143 176
Mashhoon B 1990 Phys. Lett. A 145 147
Mashhoon B 1993 Phys. Rev. A 47 4498

 Mashhoon B 1993 Phys. Lett. A 173 347
Mashhoon B, Gronwald F and Theiss DS 1999 Ann. Physik 8 135
Mashhoon B, Gronwald F and Lichtenegger HIM 2000 in Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space, edited by C. Lämmerzahl, C.W.F. Everitt and F.W. Hehl (Springer-Verlag, Berlin); gr-qc/9912027

 de Oliveira CG and Tiomno J 1962 Nuovo Cimento 24 672
Mitskievich NV 1969 Physical Fields in General Relativity Theory, in Russian (Nauka, Moscow)
Schmutzer E 1973 Ann. Physik 29 75
Barker BM and O’Connell RF 1975 Phys. Rev. D 12 329
Schmutzer E and Plebański J 1977 Fortschr. Phys. 25 37

 Hehl FW and Ni W-T 1990 Phys. Rev. D 42 2045
Cai YQ and Papini G 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 1259; 1992 ibid. 68 3811
Anandan J 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 3809
Andretsch J and Lämmerzahl C 1992 Appl. Phys. B 54 351
Silverman MP 1992 Nuovo Cimento D 14 857
Huang J 1994 Ann. Physik 3 53
Soares ID and Tiomno J 1996 Phys. Rev. D 54 2808
Ryder LH 1999 Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 775

 Mashhoon B 1974 Nature 250 316
Mashhoon B 1974 Phys. Rev. D 10 1059
Mashhoon B 1975 Phys. Rev. D 11 2679

 Damour T and Ruffini R 1974 C.R. Acad. Sci. A 279 971
de Logi WK and Kovacs SJ Jr. 1977 Phys. Rev. D 16 237
Leahy DA 1982 Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21 703
Mashhoon B 1987 Phys. Lett. A 122 299
Futterman JAH, Handler FA and Matzner RA 1988 Scattering from Black Holes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Feng LL and Lu T 1991 Class. Quantum Grav. 8 851
Carini P, Feng LL, Li M and Ruffini R 1992 Phys. Rev. D 46 5407

 Harwit M et al. 1974 Nature 249 230
Dennison B, Dickey J and Jauncey D 1976 Nature 263 666
Dennison B et al. 1978 Nature 273 33

 Mashhoon B 1999 Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 681

 Kopeikin S and Mashhoon B 2000 preprint

 Romalis M 2000 private communication