text:
# 1 Graviton profile on the Schwarzschild-AdS space-time. For large r the graviton behaves like in ordinary AdS space and is not normalizable. A cutoff in form of a brane is needed at r=r₀. For small values of r, the graviton also diverges, but is hidden behind a horizon.

IFT-UAM/CSIC-00-11

hep-th/0003002

Brane World with Bulk Horizons

César Gómez,111E-mail address: cesar.gomez@uam.es Bert Janssen222E-mail address: bert.janssen@uam.es and Pedro J. Silva333E-mail address: psilva@delta.ft.uam.es

Instituto de Física Teórica, C-XVI,

Departamento de Física Teórica, C-XI,

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

E-28006 Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT

A brane world in the presence of a bulk black hole is constructed. The brane tension is fine tuned in terms of the black hole mass and cosmological constant. Gravitational perturbations localized on the brane world are discussed.

1. Introduction

A brane world with induced four dimensional gravity was first introduced in  on the basis of a $`AdS_5`$ bulk geometry. In this scheme normalizable gravitational zero modes are allowed due to the ultraviolet cutoff induced by the brane wall. The dilaton field is constant and the holographic degrees of freedom on the wall define a conformal field theory coupled to gravity . In a series of recent papers  this framework was extended to the non conformal case i.e to dilatonic domain walls. In these cases, both with vanishing and non vanishing cosmological constant, we observe the phenomena of induced four dimensional gravity, however a naked curvature singularity is induced by the non constant dilaton in the bulk at a finite proper distance from the brane wall. The physics interpretation of such a singularity from the four dimensional point of view is still an open problem.

In this letter we will look for a Randall-Sundrum scenario but this time in the bulk geometry of a real black hole with the singularity inside a trapped surface. A similar analysis was with a non static Ansatz was first by  in the framework of cosmological models. We will work out the static case in a Schwarzschild-AdS bulk metric. This will correspond to a brane world in a thermal bath at the Hawking temperature. The first question we will address would be the fine tuning relations between the brane wall tension and the parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`M`$ characterizing the Schwarzschild-AdS metric. These fine tuning relations would be obtained by solving the corresponding jump equations once we introduce the wall as an ultraviolet cutoff analogously to the AdS case. Since our space is asymptotically AdS this cutoff could be enough to induce four dimensional gravity on the wall in terms of normalizable graviton zero modes.

2. Construction of the solution

Our starting point is the following five-dimensional action of gravity in the presence of a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with a domain wall source term given by:

$$S=\frac{1}{\kappa }d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{|g|}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]+d^4x\sqrt{|\stackrel{~}{g}|}V_0,$$
(1)
where $`V_0`$ is the tension of the brane and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}=g_{\mu \nu }\delta _m^\mu \delta _n^\nu `$ the induced metric on the brane.

We are interested in a solution resembling the Schwarzschild-AdS solution, which is given by :

$$ds^2=(1+R^2r^2\frac{2M}{r^2})dt^2\frac{1}{(1+R^2r^2\frac{2M}{r^2})}dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2.$$
(2)
where $`R=12\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ and $`M`$ is basically the black hole mass. In order to apply the Randall-Sundrum program to this type of metrics, we consider a new set of coordinates defined by,

$$dz=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+R^2r^2\frac{2M}{r^2}}}dr,$$
(3)
therefore ending up in a holographic-like frame

$$ds^2=A^2(z)dt^2+B^2(z)d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2dz^2,$$
(4)
where $`A(z)`$ and $`B(z)`$ are function of the holografic coordinate $`z`$, implicitly given by

$$A(r)=\sqrt{1+R^2r^2\frac{2M}{r^2}},B(r)=r,$$
(5)
with $`r`$ a function of $`z`$, defined by the relation (3). Using this Ansatz (4) in the corresponding equations of motion of (1), we get the following system of equations:

$`B^2\mathrm{\Lambda }B^2(B^{})^2A^1A^{}B^1B^{}=0,`$
$`B^2+B^1B^{\prime \prime }+B^2(B^{})^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{6}\kappa V_0\delta (z)=0,`$ (6)
$`1+\frac{1}{2}B^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+A^1B^2A^{\prime \prime }+2BB^{\prime \prime }+(B^{})^2+2A^1A^{}BB^{}+\frac{1}{2}\kappa V_0\delta (z)=0,`$
where “  ” means derivatives with respect to $`z`$ and have used the fact that $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ is a three-dimensional sphere of radius one.

To obtain the desired solution, we use the fact that (5) is a solution of the action without source term, therefore in our case the solution to the full equations (S0.Ex2) is given by the functions (5) with a modification of the relation between $`z`$ and $`r`$, defined as follows

$$|\overline{z}|=z_0\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{2R^1rA+2R^2r^2+1}{\sqrt{1+8MR^2}}\right|$$
(7)
where $`\overline{z}=z_0z`$, which translates into:

$$d|\overline{z}|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+R^2r^2\frac{2M}{r^2}}}dr.$$
(8)
The modulus of the radial coordinate $`\overline{z}`$ runs between the the position of the brane at $`\overline{z}=0`$ and the black hole horizons at $`|\overline{z}|=z_0`$. In this coordinates this means that the brane is located somewhere between the horizon and the boundary.

By solving the jump equations we find that the brane tension $`V_0`$ is given in terms of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the black hole mass $`M`$ and $`r(\overline{z}=0)`$, provided the brane is located at the origin in $`\overline{z}`$ coordinates, by the following relation:

$$V_0=\frac{6}{\kappa r(0)}\sqrt{1+R^2r(0)^2\frac{2M}{r(0)^2}}$$
(9)
If the black hole horizon is smaller than the AdS radius $`M<R^2`$, we could choose to do the cutoff at $`r(\overline{z}=0)=R`$ and the above formula reduces to:

$$V_0=\frac{6}{\kappa R^2}\sqrt{2R^22M}=\frac{1}{\kappa }\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}(1\frac{1}{12}M\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(10)
Note that in the limit $`M0`$, we recover the Randall-Sundrum relation between $`V_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 444Also the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ is well defined, recovering the standard Schwarzschild solution in Minkowski space, where the relation between $`r`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ is: $`\overline{z}=z_0\sqrt{r^22M}`$. .

In summary what we have done is basically to consider Schwarzschild-AdS space time with a brane located at a given distance $`r(0)`$ from the event horizon. Then replace the part of the space time outside the brane ($`r>r(0)`$) with a copy of the inner part, ending up with a finite range for the radial variable. It is important to note that this space time comes with two space-like singularities hidden inside the event horizons. Comparison with the dilatonic solution found on previous work , shows that the role of the singularity on those solutions is replaced by the event horizon in this new model. Nevertheless we also have a non isotropic worldbrane, the time direction scales differently than the space directions under radial flow.

3. Gravitational perturbations

To calculate the behavior of the graviton we add small fluctuations $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ to the above background, choosing the following gauge:

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+h_{\alpha \beta }\delta _\mu ^\alpha \delta _\nu ^\beta ,$$
(11)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ run over the coordinates $`t`$ and the angular coordinates $`x^m`$. Furthermore we have $`h=g^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }=A^2h_{tt}+B^2\overline{h}`$ and $`h=0`$, $`\overline{}^mh_{m\mu }=0`$, where $`\overline{}_m`$ stands for the covariant derivative of the angular coordinates. Notice that this is not the usual de Donder gauge since the perturbation is not traceless. Nevertheless if we are interested in a real graviton with two helicity states more constraints should be added.

The equation of motion, on this gauge for the fluctuation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is:

$$^2h_{\mu \nu }2^\rho _{(\mu }h_{\nu )\rho }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }h=0,$$
(12)
Introducing the background (4), the components $`\{tt\}`$ and $`\{zz\}`$ of the above equation, reduce to:

$`A^3A^{}_zh_{tt}2A^4(A^{})^2h_{tt}+B^3B^{}_z\overline{h}2B^4(B^{})^2\overline{h}=0`$
$`_z^2h_{tt}+A^2_t^2h_{tt}B^2\overline{}^2h_{tt}3(B^1B^{}A^1A^{})_zh_{tt}`$
$`+(4A^2(A^{})^2\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda })h_{tt}+\frac{1}{2}A^2h=0`$ (13)
To describe four-dimensional zero modes, we consider eigenfunction of the world brane variables $`x^\alpha `$, satisfying

$$A^2_t^2h_{tt}B^2\overline{}^2h_{tt}=0.$$
(14)
Under these conditions we find a very simple solution:

$$h_{tt}=A^2,\overline{h}=B^2$$
(15)
In principle we could turn on more degrees of freedom, to determine a more realistic graviton, nevertheless this mode shows the correct behavior to illustrate the location of the perturbation, and its normalizability. Note that the specific form of our perturbation reproduces the desired localization on the brane (see fig. 1,2) as well as the normalizability condition.

To end this letter we would like to relate the world brane Newton constant with the five dimensional Newton constant. To proceed on this direction we note that a straightforward definition is not possible since the obvious Kaluza-Klein reduction gives no terms in the effective action that could be related to the Einstein term. This is a consequence of the anisotropy of the world brane. Fortunately far from the event horizon this space time looks like AdS, therefore our brane becomes isotropic with warp factor $`A^2`$. Then we can proceed as usual to define the Newton constant.

The Newton constant, far from the horizon is essentially AdS in static coordinates plus a correction coming from the black hole:

$$M_4^2=M_5^3_0^{z_0}𝑑zA^2(r(\overline{z}))=r_0\left(1+\frac{r_0^2}{R^2}+\frac{2M}{r_0^2}\right)$$
(16)
For $`r_0=R`$ and $`MR`$

$$M_4^2=M_5^3\sqrt{\frac{64}{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left(1\frac{1}{8}M\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)$$
(17)
Again the warp factor defines the hierarchy and goes like $`A^2`$.‘

Acknowledgments
We thank E. Alvarez for helpful conversations. The work of C.G. and B.J. has been supported by the TMR program FMRX-CT96-0012 on Integrability, non-perturbative effects, and symmetry in quantum field theory. The work of P.S. was partially supported by the government of Venezuela.


format: text

text:
# R-parity violating anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking

## 1 Introduction

Low energy supersymmetry remains the most promising known perturbative solution to the gauge hierarchy problem that afflicts the Standard Model. It is clear from current data however, that for supersymmetry to be present in nature, it must be broken. Three phenomenologically distinct mechanisms for translating supersymmetry breaking from a hidden sector to the observable sector are currently recognised: tree-level gravity, gauge or anomaly mediation. The last mediator has received relatively little attention, and it is upon this mechanism that we focus the attention of this letter.

Anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB) in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) provides a potential solution to the supersymmetric (SUSY) flavour problem . This is a problem of many supergravity theories in which squarks and sleptons typically acquire unacceptably large flavour-changing neutral currents (FCNCs) through flavour mixings in their mass matrices. In AMSB, SUSY breaking is assumed to take place in a hidden (“sequestered”) sector. A re-scaling anomaly in the super-Weyl conformal transformation transmits the SUSY breaking to the observable sector. It was suggested that the MSSM superfields be confined to a 3-brane in a higher dimensional bulk space-time, with the sequestered sector separated by the extra dimension from the visible sector brane. If direct Kahler couplings between the sequestered and visible sectors are suppressed (as is the case in the above geometrical set-up), these SUSY breaking terms can be the dominant forms of SUSY breaking in the visible sector. This scenario produces a supersymmetric spectrum dependent upon only three unknown parameters, an overall supersymmetric breaking mass scale and the MSSM Higgs potential parameters $`\mu `$ and $`B`$. For example, the AMSB mass squared values for scalar components of chiral matter supermultiplets are given by ,

$$(m^2)_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_j}|_{AM}=\frac{1}{4}M_{\mathrm{aux}}^2\left[\mu \frac{d^2}{d\mu ^2}\mathrm{ln}Z_i^j\right],$$
(1)
where $`\mu `$ denotes the t’Hooft renormalization scale and $`Z_j^i`$ is the matter field wave function of the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. $`M_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ is the vacuum expectation value of a compensator superfield , and sets the overall mass scale for visible sector SUSY breaking. Defining

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_j}1/2\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}Z_j^i)}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu },$$
(2)
we may write

$$(m^2)_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_j}|_{AM}=\frac{1}{2}M_{\mathrm{aux}}^2\left[\beta (Y)\frac{}{Y}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_j}+\beta (g)\frac{}{g}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_j}\right]$$
(3)
summed over all Yukawa couplings $`Y`$ and gauge couplings $`g`$. $`\beta (x)`$ represents the beta function $`dx/d\mathrm{ln}\mu `$ of coupling $`x`$. An interesting fact is that the AMSB soft terms are valid to all orders in perturbation theory . For scalars of the first two families, Yukawa couplings can be safely neglected and so the dominant terms in eq. (3) are those proportional to the gauge couplings. These, being family universal, highly suppress the most problematic FCNC processes and thus solve the SUSY flavour problem.

The trilinear soft term $`A_Y`$ corresponding to Yukawa coupling $`Y`$ is given by

$$YA_Y=\beta (Y)M_{\mathrm{aux}},$$
(4)
and the gaugino mass $`M_g`$ associated with each gauge group of coupling $`g`$ is

$$gM_g=\beta (g)M_{\mathrm{aux}}.$$
(5)
One particularly desirable feature is that eqs. (3-5) are renormalisation invariant , provided that there are no massive parameters present in the superpotential (for example from bilinear terms). This means that AMSB has the advantage over gravity and gauge mediation that the low energy phenomenology does not depend upon the renormalisation of parameters at high scales, where unknown corrections from new physics apply. Unfortunately in the minimal version of the AMSB MSSM, the sleptons have negative mass squared values, indicating that the true vacuum state of the model is not the desired electroweak one. There have been several successful attempts to fix this problem, for example positive bulk Standard Model singlet contributions to the scalar masses , non-decoupling effects , heavy vector-like messengers coupled to light modulus fields  have all been proposed. All of the above models have spoiled the desirable renormalisation group invariant feature, rendering the theories potentially sensitive to unknown ultra-violet effects.

In a recent paper , a model which solves the slepton problem in AMSB with SUSY breaking Fayet-Iliopoulos D-terms of an additional U(1) gauge symmetry was presented. Extra Standard-Model gauge singlet chiral superfields are added to the MSSM. The model has the advantage of soft terms that do not depend upon the ultra-violet physics ,. The model of ref.  extends the MSSM by 3 extra Higgs doublets, a vector-like pair of extra triplets and 4 new singlets near the weak scale. Large Yukawa couplings between the extra Higgs and MSSM leptons provide additional positive contributions to the slepton mass squareds in eq. (3), while preserving renormalisation group invariance of the mass relations. We note that the above attempts to solve the AMSB slepton problem have all had $`R`$-parity invariance as a feature.

Here, we make a new proposal which preserves the renormalisation invariance of the AMSB supersymmetry breaking mass relations and requires no superfields additional to those in the MSSM coupling directly to the visible sector. By considering a subset of trilinear R-parity violating ($`\overline{)}R_p`$) operators in the superpotential, we change the wave-function renormalisation of the sparticles, in particular providing new positive contributions to the slepton mass squared values. Throughout this work we will assume the dogma of minimality with respect to solving the slepton problem in AMSB, for brevity and simplicity.

First, in section 2, we will classify models that simultaneously solve the MSSM AMSB tachyonic slepton problem while not generating dangerous lepton flavour violating operators. There emerges a scenario with 3 non-negligible lepton number violating ($`\overline{)}L`$)-operators only. In section 3, we then present the slepton masses in terms of the supersymmetric couplings explicitly and briefly discuss the other soft breaking terms. All other soft masses are equivalent to the $`R_p`$ conserving AMSB MSSM to one-loop order. In section 4, we impose constraints upon the model, the most restrictive being from lepton non-universality. For the $`\overline{)}L`$-contributions to be sufficient to raise all slepton mass squared values above zero, we require some $`\overline{)}L`$-couplings of order 1. We demonstrate that this is not in conflict with current data if the scalar sparticles are rather heavy, above 1.2 TeV. We also present the sparticle spectra. In section 5, some implications for collider searches at the Tevatron and LHC are presented. Finally, we summarise the main features of the model, reviewing its successful features and noting possible future work in section 6.

## 2 Rescuing the AMSB MSSM with R-parity violation

We begin with the AMSB MSSM including general trilinear $`\overline{)}R_p`$-operators. We then identify the subset of operators which are useful in solving the AMSB slepton problem. In the notation of ref. , the general trilinear $`\overline{)}R_p`$-MSSM superpotential is written

$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_E)_{ij}L_iH_1\overline{E}_j+(Y_D)_{ij}Q_iH_1\overline{D}_j+(Y_U)_{ij}Q_iH_2\overline{U}_j+`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijk}L_iL_j\overline{E}_k+\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_j\overline{D}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\overline{U}_i\overline{D}_j\overline{D}_k,`$
where we have suppressed gauge indices, and $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}=1,2,3`$ are family indices. The anomalous dimensions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}^{\mathrm{\Phi }_j}`$ relevant for substitution into eq. (3) for the superpotential $`W_3`$ have been presented in ref.  to two-loop order. Their one-loop truncation is annexed here to Appendix A for ease of reference.

For example, substituting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_{R}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}}^{E_{R}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}}`$ into eq. (3), we obtain the most problematic soft mass squared, that of the right handed sleptons:

$$16\pi ^2(m_{E_R}^2)_i^j=\frac{1}{2}M_{\mathrm{aux}}^2[2(Y_E^{})_{jk}\beta (Y_E)_{ki}+\lambda _{kmi}\beta (\lambda _{kmj})+(ij)G_E],$$
(7)
where $`G_E396g_1^4/(25\times 16\pi ^2)`$. The first term on the right hand side is negligible for selectrons and smuons because it is proportional to the electron and muon mass respectively. In the R-parity conserving scenario where all $`\lambda _{ijk}=0`$, the last (negative) term therefore forces the right handed selectrons and smuons to have negative mass squared values. If $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >40`$, the positive contribution from $`(Y_E)_{33}`$ becomes non-negligible and the right handed stau mass squared may be raised above zero. However, we immediately see that a positive contribution may be obtained to $`(m_{E_R})_k^k`$ from $`\lambda _{ijk}0`$, and it is this possibility that we exploit111Following the minimality dogma, we assume real $`\overline{)}R_p`$-couplings.. So far, the condition of minimality identifies222We set all $`\overline{)}R_p`$operators not explicitly mentioned to zero. the combination

$$\lambda _{jk1},\lambda _{lm2},\lambda _{nq3}0,$$
(8)
which provides positive contributions to all three right handed slepton masses. We also observe that $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$, $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ cannot solve the problem of negative right handed slepton masses and so we drop them from the discussion. We will assume in the present models that they are zero, and indeed this assumption will make it simpler to satisfy stringent empirical limits upon successful scenarios.

The left-handed sleptons also have negative mass squared values in the usual $`R_p`$-conserving AMSB MSSM scenario. Including LLE operators by substituting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_i}^{L_j}`$ into eq. (3) and setting $`\lambda _{ijk}^{},\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }=0`$ for all $`i,j,k`$,

$$16\pi ^2(m_L^2)_i^j=\frac{1}{2}M_{\mathrm{aux}}^2[(Y_E^{})_{jk}\beta (Y_E)_{ki}+\lambda _{ikq}\beta (\lambda _{jkq})+(ij)G_L],$$
(9)
where $`G_L(99g_1^2+75g_2^2)/(25\times 16\pi ^2)`$. Thus the R-parity conserving scenario (all $`\lambda _{ijk}=0`$) suffers from negative mass squared values for the left-handed selectron and smuon (and the stau if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not large), analogous to the right handed sleptons. A positive contribution to $`(m_L^2)_i^i`$ results if $`\lambda _{ijk}0`$, i.e. we require

$$\lambda _{1jk},\lambda _{2lm},\lambda _{3nq}0,$$
(10)
to provide additional positive contributions to all left-handed slepton mass squareds.

In order to keep the number of couplings to a minimum, we require that the same non-zero couplings that render the right-handed slepton masses squared values positive in eq. (8) also provide us with positive left-handed slepton mass squared values in eq. (10).

We now identify a further constraint upon $`\lambda _{ijk}`$

$$\lambda _{imm}=0,i$$
(11)
(no sum on $`m`$) to avoid the generation of large off-diagonal slepton mass terms. Such terms would generate an empirically unacceptable amount of lepton flavour violation , such as $`\mu e\gamma `$. Eq. (11) also forbids the generation of lepton-Higgs mixing, as can be seen from eq. (39). Simultaneously applying the above constraints in eqs. (8-11) leads to the unique combination

$$\lambda _{123},\lambda _{132},\lambda _{231}0.$$
(12)
Thus we have identified the $`\overline{)}L`$-couplings that will solve the AMSB MSSM slepton problem without generating lepton flavour violating effects that are too large. We note that for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >40`$, we could set $`\lambda _{123}=0`$ and still have positive mass squared values for the sleptons. For the moment, we include all three couplings for generality, and indeed below, we focus on a particular model for which $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4.2`$, requiring us to include $`\lambda _{123}0`$.

## 3 Soft supersymmetry breaking terms

We now discuss the (one loop) equations for the soft supersymmetry breaking terms. We work in a basis where Yukawa couplings apart from $`Y_\tau (Y_E)_{33}`$, $`Y_t(Y_U)_{33}`$, $`Y_b(Y_D)_{33}`$ (the tau, top and bottom Yukawa couplings respectively) and $`\overline{)}R_p`$-couplings not discussed above are sub-leading and are therefore neglected.

### 3.1 Slepton masses

The slepton soft masses are given by eqs. (9),(7) as

$`(m^2)_{L_1}^{L_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{aux}^2}{(16\pi ^2)}}\left[\lambda _{123}\beta (\lambda _{123})+\lambda _{132}\beta (\lambda _{132})\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1\beta (g_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2\beta (g_2)\right)\right]`$ (13)
$`(m^2)_{L_2}^{L_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{aux}^2}{(16\pi ^2)}}\left[\lambda _{231}\beta (\lambda _{231})+\lambda _{123}\beta (\lambda _{123})\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1\beta (g_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2\beta (g_2)\right)\right]`$ (14)
$`(m^2)_{L_3}^{L_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{aux}^2}{(16\pi ^2)}}\left[Y_\tau \beta (Y_\tau )+\lambda _{132}\beta (\lambda _{132})+\lambda _{231}\beta (\lambda _{231})\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1\beta (g_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2\beta (g_2)\right)\right]`$
$`(m^2)_{E_1}^{E_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{aux}^2}{(16\pi ^2)}}\left[2\lambda _{231}\beta (\lambda _{231}){\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1\beta (g_1)\right]`$ (15)
$`(m^2)_{E_2}^{E_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{aux}^2}{(16\pi ^2)}}\left[2\lambda _{132}\beta (\lambda _{132}){\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1\beta (g_1)\right]`$ (16)
$`(m^2)_{E_3}^{E_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{aux}^2}{(16\pi ^2)}}\left[2Y_\tau \beta (Y_\tau )+2\lambda _{123}\beta (\lambda _{123}){\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1\beta (g_1)\right]`$ (17)
where the $`\beta `$-functions are given by

$`\beta (Y_\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_\tau }{16\pi ^2}}\left[4Y_\tau ^2+3Y_b^2+2\lambda _{123}^2+\lambda _{132}^2+\lambda _{231}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^2+3g_2^2\right)\right]`$ (18)
$`\beta (\lambda _{123})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{123}}{16\pi ^2}}\left[2Y_\tau ^2+4\lambda _{123}^2+\lambda _{231}^2+\lambda _{132}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^2+3g_2^2\right)\right]`$ (19)
$`\beta (\lambda _{231})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{231}}{16\pi ^2}}\left[Y_\tau ^2+4\lambda _{231}^2+\lambda _{123}^2+\lambda _{132}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^2+3g_2^2\right)\right]`$ (20)
$`\beta (\lambda _{132})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{132}}{16\pi ^2}}\left[Y_\tau ^2+4\lambda _{132}^2+\lambda _{123}^2+\lambda _{231}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^2+3g_2^2\right)\right]`$ (21)
### 3.2 Other soft terms

The soft terms for squark masses and trilinear couplings can be derived from the general formulae in the Appendix. To one-loop accuracy, the rest are equivalent to the $`R_p`$ conserving MSSM soft terms , except for the trilinear slepton couplings and $`m_{H_1}`$:

$$m_{H_1}^2=\frac{M_{aux}^2}{16\pi ^2}\left[3Y_b\beta (Y_b)+Y_\tau \beta (Y_\tau )\left(\frac{3}{10}g_1\beta (g_1)+\frac{3}{2}g_2\beta (g_2)\right)\right].$$
(22)
From eq. (18), we see that $`m_{H_1}`$ depends upon the combination $`\kappa 2\lambda _{123}^2+\lambda _{132}^2+\lambda _{231}^2`$. Because $`\mu `$ is fixed partly by $`m_{H_1}`$ in the electroweak symmetry breaking condition , it is altered from the $`R_p`$-conserving scenario by $`\kappa 0`$. We note in particular the anomaly-mediated contribution to the $`B`$-term realised in a specific model with a bulk contribution :

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{M_{aux}}{16\pi ^2}}\left[3Y_t^2+3Y_b^2+Y_\tau ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}g_1^2+3g_2^2\right)\right].`$ (23)
We shall utilise this model in order to cut the parameter space down. The prediction of $`B`$ (for a given value of $`M_{\mathrm{aux}}`$) results in a prediction of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from the potential minimisation conditions . We note that in the AMSB MSSM, a term $`\mu H_1H_2`$ in the superpotential spoils the conformal invariance. However, $`\mu `$ can be viewed as a result of supersymmetry breaking , providing a natural explanation the size of $`\mu `$ necessary to obtain $`M_Z=91.18`$ GeV. In our convention, $`B`$ and $`\mu `$ have opposite signs in successful minima, so the $`B`$ term predicted also constrains the sign of $`\mu `$ to be positive.

## 4 Spectra and constraints

Some products of the $`\overline{)}L`$-couplings are constrained to be tiny and practically useless in solving the AMSB slepton mass problem ,

$`\lambda _{mni}`$ $`/`$ $`\lambda _{mnj}ij,`$ (24)
$`\lambda _{imn}`$ $`/`$ $`\lambda _{jmn}ij,`$ (25)
where $`/`$ stands for ‘not non-zero with’. The combination of couplings $`\lambda _{123},\lambda _{132},\lambda _{231}0`$ respects this constraint. In addition, the most recent bounds upon the individual couplings are :

$`\lambda _{123}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`0.49\times {\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}}{1\mathrm{T}eV}}`$ (26)
$`\lambda _{132}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`0.62\times {\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R}}{1\mathrm{T}eV}}`$ (27)
$`\lambda _{231}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`0.70\times {\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}}{1\mathrm{T}eV}},`$ (28)
from charged lepton universality . As we show below, these provide the most severe constraints upon the model. The couplings also pass the $`\mu e\gamma `$ conversion limits .

### 4.1 Sparticle Spectra

We now perform a one-loop accuracy numerical analysis to determine the sparticle and Higgs spectrum. The full one-loop Higgs potential is minimised at a scale $`Q`$2 TeV, where the radiative corrections to the potential are small, to determine $`\mu `$. This choice of scale can change the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ prediction a little. For experimental inputs on the gauge couplings we use  $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.119`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w=0.2312`$, $`\alpha (M_Z)=1/127.9`$ in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme. 3 loop QCD$``$2 loop QED is used as an effective field theory below $`M_Z`$. Central values  of the top and bottom pole masses $`M_t=174.3,M_b=4.9`$ GeV are taken. For simplicity we set $`\lambda \lambda _{123}=\lambda _{231}=\lambda _{312}`$, a renormalisation group invariant choice in the limit that $`Y_\tau =0`$. In fact, all soft masses and couplings except those of the sleptons and one of the Higgs are independent of the choice of these three couplings. Here, we choose $`\lambda (M_Z)=0.73`$, which is sufficient to render all slepton mass squared values positive ($`\lambda >0.66`$). If $`\lambda (M_Z)`$ is set too large, then $`M_{aux}`$ must be set very large in order to produce sleptons heavy enough to evade eqs. (26-28). Remarkably, $`\lambda (M_Z)=0.73`$ is near a common quasi-fixed point value for all three couplings if we assume that they are set large at a scale $`M_{GUT}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, where the gauge couplings unify. The quasi-fixed behaviour is exhibited by displaying insensitivity to the ultra-violet boundary condition . This behaviour is exhibited in Fig. 1

As can be seen from the figure, $`\lambda _{132}`$ and $`\lambda _{231}`$ both approach the 0.7-0.8 region, roughly independent of the values assumed for them at $`M_{GUT}`$. We have checked that $`\lambda _{123}`$ approaches the 0.7-0.8 region also.

Fig. 2 shows the supersymmetric particle spectrum in the AMSB scenario for different values of $`M_{aux}`$. The value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 4.2`$ is predicted where the minimisation conditions of the Higgs potential satisfy eq. (23). In fact, this value has a small (neglected) dependence upon $`M_{aux}`$ and the scale at which the potential is minimised, and thus has an uncertainty of about $`\pm 1.0`$. The dashed region is excluded from the experimental bounds derived from charged lepton universality, the most stringent being eq. (26). An improvement of these bounds by a factor of two would test up to $`M_{aux}=400`$ TeV. The LSP neutralino is quasi-degenerate with the lightest chargino, as usual in AMSB . The Higgs mass determinations are performed using state-of-the-art two loop corrections . The lightest CP-even Higgs mass $`m_{h^0}`$ is insensitive to $`M_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ and $`\lambda (M_Z)`$, but has the usual large dependence upon $`M_t`$. For $`M_t=174.3`$ GeV however, $`M_{h^0}=117.5\pm 0.5`$ GeV, with an estimated 2 GeV uncertainty coming from higher order corrections. As can be seen from the figure, the excluded region forces all sparticles to be rather heavy - the lightest chargino and neutralino can be as light as 500 GeV, but all other sparticles and heavy Higgs must be heavier than 1.1 TeV.

## 5 Collider phenomenology

The phenomenology and search prospects of the AMSB $`R_p`$-conserving scenarios have been considered in refs. ,,,,. The present scenario differs in two main respects. Firstly, the $`\overline{)}R_p`$-coupling exclusion limits shown in fig. 2 force superpartners to be heavier than was previously considered with $`R_p`$-conserving AMSB. Secondly, the decays of $`\chi _1^\pm `$, $`\chi _1^0`$ are qualitatively different. In the $`R_p`$ conserving case, the quasi-degeneracy of $`\chi _1^\pm `$ and $`\chi _1^0`$ means that the $`\chi _1^\pm `$ is quasi-stable , and of course the $`\chi _1^0`$ is undetected, except as missing energy. A classic signature for the lightest chargino is then the presence of heavily ionising tracks, with possible slow decays into pions/leptons. In the present scenario however, the lightest chargino and neutralinos decay almost immediately into 3 leptons.

To illustrate the decays and cross sections of the model, we pick a particular value of $`M_{\mathrm{aux}}=220`$ TeV. The detailed spectrum and parameters are displayed in Table 1. HERWIG6.1  was utilised to estimate sparticle discovery prospects of this spectrum at the Tevatron and LHC. We display the cross-sections of the hard sub-process of sparticle production in Table LABEL:tab:cross. Also shown is the number of expected events for luminosities of $`=10,30`$ fb-1 at the Tevatron and LHC respectively333Equivalent to approximately 3 years running at low luminosity at the LHC. The table shows that charginos and neutralinos are produced at the LHC at a detectable rate, but the Tevatron should see no superparticles. However, we note that the lightest CP-even Higgs of mass $`m_{h^0}118`$ GeV should be discovered at the Tevatron .

We ran the weak-scale spectrum through a version of ISASUSY  modified to take $`\overline{)}R_p`$-interactions into account . This then calculated the relevant decays. The lightest neutralino decays through twelve channels with equal branching ratios of 1/12 and partial widths of 2.25$`\times 10^5`$ GeV:

$`\chi _1^0`$ $``$ $`e^+\overline{\nu }_\mu \tau ^{},e^{}\nu _\mu \tau ^+,e^+\overline{\nu }_\tau \mu ^{},e^{}\nu _\tau \mu ^+,\mu ^+\overline{\nu }_e\tau ^{},\mu ^{}\nu _e\tau ^+,`$ (29)
$`\mu ^+\overline{\nu }_\tau e^{},\mu ^{}\nu _\tau e^+,\tau ^+\overline{\nu }_e\mu ^{},\tau ^{}\nu _e\mu ^+,\tau ^+\overline{\nu }_\mu e^{},\tau ^{}\nu _\mu e^+,`$
whereas $`\chi _1^+`$ has six decay channels

$$\chi _1^+\nu _\mu \nu _e\tau ^+,\nu _\tau \nu _e\mu ^+,\nu _\tau \nu _\mu e^+,\mu ^+e^+\tau ^{},\tau ^+e^+\mu ^{},\tau ^+\mu ^+e^{}$$
(30)
again with equal branching ratios of 1/6 and partial widths of 4.5$`\times 10^5`$ GeV. These decays should be easy to find with low backgrounds at the LHC. Double chargino production can be found by decays into six charged leptons, or chargino/neutralino production via a five charged lepton channel, with distinctive flavour structure. Lepton flavour violation is usually explicit in the final state. We have obtained approximately equal branching ratios here mainly because we have assumed $`\lambda _{123}=\lambda _{231}=\lambda _{132}`$. In the case they are non-degenerate, this will change and the relative branching ratios into different final states will help measure the $`\overline{)}R_p`$-couplings.

## 6 Conclusions

We have proposed a new solution to the problem of slepton negative mass squared values in the AMSB MSSM. It involves including 3 $`\overline{)}L`$-operators in the superpotential which were previously assumed to be absent. This leads to positive mass squared values for all of the sleptons and renormalisation-group invariant relations between supersymmetry breaking terms and the measured supersymmetric couplings. This has the advantage of rendering the model insensitive to unknown ultra-violet effects. The $`\mu `$ problem has a natural solution , indeed the prediction of the $`B`$term in a particular model results in a prediction for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. All of the sparticle spectrum except for the slepton masses are then given in terms of two free parameters: $`M_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ and $`\kappa `$.

We have therefore assumed the MSSM spectrum near the weak scale, and that the dominant source of supersymmetry breaking terms in the observable sector is from anomaly mediation. Experimental limits on the $`\overline{)}L`$-operators provide stringent constraints upon the model, meaning that sparticle masses must be rather high. Whereas the lightest charginos and neutralinos can be as light as 500 GeV, the other sparticles must be heavier than 1.1 TeV. The Tevatron therefore sees no new particles except the lightest Higgs of mass 118 GeV, and the LHC can detect the lightest charginos and neutralinos via distinctive leptonic decays. Charged lepton universality violation is predicted to be close to its experimental bound, within a factor of two.

Neutrino masses and mixings are beyond the scope of this paper, but it is well known that the $`\overline{)}L`$-operators we have introduced can generate them at the loop level . We intend to pursue them in future work , and the small number of free parameters should allow a strict correlation with lepton flavour violating predictions. We believe the present model of supersymmetry breaking in the observable sector to warrant several future works. For example, a more accurate calculation of the spectrum and a determination of the LHC reach in parameter space would be useful. It would be desirable to find symmetries to ban or suppress the other $`\overline{)}R_p`$-couplings. Aside from these, the usual calculations in the MSSM (quark FCNCs, charge and colour breaking constraints etc) could be performed. It will be interesting to investigate the present idea in a more general framework, for example when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large (the prediction of the lightest MSSM Higgs mass is likely to change from the one presented here) and there are only two LLE couplings, or where splittings between the $`\overline{)}R_p`$couplings occur. Relaxing the assumption that $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}=0`$ might lead to the possible observation of a single slepton at the LHC via slepton-strahlung .

To summarise, our scenario is a predictive scheme of supersymmetry breaking, containing natural solutions to the $`\mu `$ problem and supersymmetric flavour problem. The spectrum depends upon only two parameters apart from the slepton masses. In the case that the $`\overline{)}R_p`$-couplings are at their quasi-fixed point values, the slepton masses approximately only depend upon these same two parameters. If one assumes a high-energy cut-off scale, such as the GUT scale for example, we note that the weak-scale values of the couplings are approximately predicted by the quasi-fixed point and there is only one free parameter on which the whole sparticle spectrum depends. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is predicted in a specific model and the soft masses are given by renormalisation group invariant relations with the measured SUSY couplings. The phenomenology is rather distinctive and should be easily disentangled from other possibilities at the LHC, after being tested at the Tevatron by the Higgs mass prediction. The present model is the only example of a model with both insensitivity of the soft terms to unknown ultra-violet physics and the MSSM spectrum near the weak scale, and as such is important to investigate further.

## Appendix A One-loop anomalous dimensions and beta functions in the $`\overline{)}R_p`$-MSSM

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^i},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^i},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^i}`$ were written in a matrix notation in  as

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^k})_{ij}=\lambda _{ijk},(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^k})_{ij}=\lambda _{ijk}^{},(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^k})_{ij}=\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ (31)
and we adopt this notation for presenting results with general family structures. The one-loop anomalous dimensions of the $`\overline{)}R_p`$-MSSM are

$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_i}^{(1)L_j}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(Y_EY_E^{}\right)_{ji}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^q}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^q}^{})_{ji}+3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^q}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^q}^{})_{ji}\delta _i^j({\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2),`$ (32)
$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_i}^{(1)E_j}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(Y_E^{}Y_E\right)_{ji}+\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^j}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^i}^{})\delta _i^j({\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2),`$ (33)
$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Q_i}^{(1)Q_j}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(Y_DY_D^{}\right)_{ji}+\left(Y_UY_U^{}\right)_{ji}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^q}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^q})_{ij}`$ (34)
$`\delta _i^j({\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_3^2),`$
$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_i}^{(1)D_j}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(Y_D^{}Y_D\right)_{ij}+2\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^i}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^j})+2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^q}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^q}^{})_{ji}`$ (35)
$`\delta _i^j({\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_3^2)),`$
$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{U_i}^{(1)U_j}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(Y_U^{}Y_U\right)_{ij}+\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^j}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^i}^{})\delta _i^j({\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_3^2)),`$ (36)
$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}^{(1)H_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left(3Y_DY_D^{}+Y_EY_E^{}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2),`$ (37)
$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_2}^{(1)H_2}`$ $`=`$ $`3\text{Tr}\left(Y_UY_U^{}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2),`$ (38)
$`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_i}^{(1)H_1}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}^{(1)L_i}{}_{}{}^{}=3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^q}^{}Y_D)_{iq}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^q}^{}Y_E)_{iq}.`$ (39)
The beta functions of the couplings appearing in the superpotential in eq. (6) are:

$`\beta (Y_E)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_E)_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_k}^{E_j}+(Y_E)_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}^{H_1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^j})_{ki}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_k}^{H_1}+(Y_E)_{kj}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_k}^{L_i},`$ (40)
$`\beta (Y_D)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_D)_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_k}^{D_j}+(Y_D)_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}^{H_1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^j})_{ki}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_k}^{H_1}+(Y_D)_{kj}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Q_k}^{Q_i},`$ (41)
$`\beta (Y_U)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_U)_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{U_k}^{U_j}+(Y_U)_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_2}^{H_2}+(Y_U)_{kj}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Q_k}^{Q_i},`$ (42)
$`\beta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^k})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^l})_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_l}^{E_k}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^k})_{il}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_l}^{L_j}+(Y_E)_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}^{L_j}`$ (43)
$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E^k})_{jl}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_l}^{L_i}(Y_E)_{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}^{L_i},`$
$`\beta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^k})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^l})_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_l}^{D_k}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^k})_{il}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Q_l}^{Q_j}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D^k})_{lj}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L_l}^{L_i}(Y_D)_{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}^{L_i},`$ (44)
$`\beta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^i})_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^i})_{jl}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_l}^{D_k}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^i})_{lk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_l}^{D_j}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U^l})_{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{U_l}^{U_i}.`$ (45)
###### Acknowledgments.

BCA would like to thank D.R.T. Jones, P. Richardson and M.A. Parker for useful discussions and the IFIC, University of Valencia for hospitality offered while some of this work was carried out. We thank H. Dreiner for useful discussions and comments on the draft. AD is supported from Marie Curie Research Training Grants ERB-FMBI-CT98-3438 and thanks DAMTP, University of Cambridge for hospitality. This work has been partially supported by PPARC.


text:
# Motional sidebands and direct measurement of the cooling rate in the resonance fluorescence of a single trapped ion

## Abstract

Resonance fluorescence of a single trapped ion is spectrally analyzed using a heterodyne technique. Motional sidebands due to the oscillation of the ion in the harmonic trap potential are observed in the fluorescence spectrum. From the width of the sidebands the cooling rate is obtained and found to be in agreement with the theoretical prediction.

Since the first preparation of a single atom in a Paul trap and observation of its resonance fluorescence , investigation of this light has revealed a range of unique properties. Examples are its nonclassical nature  and the highly nonlinear response, in the form of sudden intensity jumps, of a multi-level atom to continuous laser excitation . The fluorescence is, at the same time, a unique tool for determining the state of the atom. This is particularly obvious for a single particle where each photon emission marks the respective projection of the atomic wave function into the final state of the corresponding transition. It is also of great interest to study, through its resonance fluorescence, the motion of a single laser-excited particle, e.g. for investigating laser cooling schemes or in connection with proposals for quantum state manipulation or quantum information processing with trapped particles .

The spectrum of fluorescence of a motionless two-level atom exhibits an elastic part (Rayleigh peak) which is $`\delta `$-correlated with the exciting light, and an inelastic contribution, the Mollow triplet . While the latter marks spontaneous transitions between the dressed states of the combined atom-light quantum system and appears when the light intensity approaches saturation, the elastic contribution dominates for light levels below saturation. For a free atom this spectrum is modified by the recoil shift. For a trapped atom the elastic peak is unshifted, and sidebands appear at the characteristic frequencies of the motion in the trap , with sizes that depend on the amplitude of this motion. The spectral width of these sidebands reflects the effective decay of the motional states of an atom in the trap, i.e. the rate of transitions which change this state. In particular, if laser excitation provides optical cooling of the trapped atom, the sideband width reflects the equilibrium of heating and cooling transitions in the steady state. While such sidebands have been observed in the fluorescence spectrum of ensembles of trapped neutral atoms , their investigation for a single particle and analysis of their width has not been done so far . The measurement of cooling rates is highly interesting in experiments with cold atoms or ions, in particular when many levels or several light fields are involved such that an optimal set of parameters is hard to find solely from theoretical arguments.

In this paper we report on a measurement of the resonance fluorescence of a single trapped Barium ion which reveals sidebands of the elastically scattered light due to the various components of the ion’s motion in the trapping potential. From the width of the sidebands which correspond to one of its vibrational modes in the Paul trap quasi-potential we deduce the cooling rate induced by the exciting laser. This method will enable us to perform detailed studies of motional effects of laser radiation in situ, i.e. during the laser excitation without further analysis tools.

In the experiment, a single Ba+ ion is trapped in a 1 mm diameter Paul trap. The ion is generated by impact ionization of a weak thermal Ba atomic beam with an electron beam inside the trap. The trap is suspended in UHV and driven with a 500 Vpp radio frequency signal at $`f_{Paul}19`$ MHz. The ion is laser-cooled by simultaneous excitation on its S1/2 $``$ P1/2 and P1/2 $``$ D3/2 resonance lines at 493.4 nm and 649.7 nm, respectively . See Fig. 1 for the relevant levels of Ba+. The 493 nm light is produced by a frequency doubled diode laser with external grating resonator described in Ref. . This laser is frequency stabilized to a Te2 resonance line 666 MHz away from the Ba+ line, by modulation transfer spectroscopy . The 650 nm light is generated by a diode laser with an external grating resonator, stabilized to an optical resonator. Both lasers have linewidths well below 100 kHz. The laser beams are combined on a dichroic beamsplitter before they are focused into the trap, and both light fields are linearly polarized. The laser intensities at the position of the ion are in the range of 200 mW/cm2 (493 nm) and 100 mW/cm2 (650 nm). The 650 nm laser is close to resonance, the 493 nm laser is red-detuned by about the transition linewidth ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=15.1`$ MHz) for Doppler cooling. A 2.8 Gauss magnetic field which is orthogonal to both the laser wave vector and the laser polarization defines a quantization axis and lifts the degeneracy of the Zeeman sublevels. The precise parameters are determined by fitting an 8-level Bloch equation calculation to a scan of the fluorescence intensity vs. the detuning of the 650 nm laser .

The 493 nm resonance fluorescence of the ion is analyzed with a heterodyne detection setup shown in Fig. 1 . Using a slightly simpler scheme, with a frequency shift in only one arm of the heterodyne setup and with a frequency selective photo detector, Höffges et al.  have observed the elastic part of an ion’s resonance fluorescence, but no motional sidebands. In our setup, the fluorescence at right angle to the direction of the laser beams, in the direction of the magnetic field, is collimated with an f/0.7 lens. This light consists of the two $`\sigma `$-polarized components corresponding to the P$`{}_{1/2}{}^{}(m=\pm 1/2)`$ to S$`{}_{1/2}{}^{}(m=1/2)`$ transitions, and its elastic part is linearly polarized, because the two $`\sigma `$-polarized components are coherently superimposed. For creating a local oscillator beam, the green laser light is divided into two beams which are frequency shifted by 112.5 MHz (beam 1) and 80 MHz (beam 2) using acousto-optical modulators (AOMs). Beam 1 excites the ion while beam 2 is superimposed with the collimated fluorescence on a polarizing beam splitter PBS1. The beam sizes of the collimated fluorescence and the local oscillator (beam 2) are adjusted for optimum overlap, using telescopes. Their orthogonal polarizations after PBS1 are mixed with a $`\lambda `$/2 plate and a second polarizing beam splitter PBS2 to create an interference signal. The two output signals of PBS2 are detected on two fast photodiodes (50 MHz bandwidth, 80$`\%`$ quantum efficiency). By subtracting their photodiode currents, the interference term $`SE_{lo}E_{fluor}`$ between the fluorescence and the local oscillator is filtered out. Due to the frequency shifts in beams 1 and 2, this interference product (i.e. its elastic part) is expected at a frequency of 32.5 MHz, the difference frequency of the two AOM drives, while any motional sideband due to an oscillatory motion with frequency $`f_s`$ would appear at 32.5 MHz $`\pm nf_s,n=1,2,..`$. The reason for using two AOMs is that their difference frequency is not generated elsewhere in the setup, such that no electrical crosstalk perturbs the final signal, neither can any residual amplitude modulation in one of the beams create a 32.5 MHz signal on the photodiodes. The interference signal $`S`$ is mixed with an rf reference signal at variable frequency $`f_{mix}`$ around 32.5 MHz, low-pass filtered, and finally analyzed on a Fourier spectrum analyzer with 100 kHz maximum bandwidth. All rf sources, i.e. the trap drive, the AOM supplies, and the rf reference, are phase locked to the same 10 MHz master oscillator.

With the mixer frequency $`f_{mix}`$ set to $`f_0=32.45`$ MHz, the elastically scattered light produces a signal at 50 kHz on the spectrum analyzer. Such a signal, with the resolution bandwidth set to 61 mHz, is shown in Fig. 2. Clearly, only one data point is significantly above the background noise, thus verifying the $`\delta `$-correlation between exciting laser and fluorescence. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is 17 dB (at unit bandwidth). The maximum SNR which can be achieved depends on the rate $`N`$ of fluorescence photons that are detected. It is derived in the following way: The spectral power of the signal $`S`$ is $`P_SS^2/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ is the detection bandwidth (or signal bandwidth, whichever dominates), while the noise power is $`P_NE_{lo}^2`$, such that their ratio is $`\mathrm{SNR}_{max}=E_{fluor}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =N/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$. For this to hold, the noise created by $`E_{lo}`$ with no fluorescence present  has to be the dominant noise in the photodiode signal $`S`$. By varying the local oscillator power without a fluorescence signal we confirmed that this is the case in our experiment and that the noise is close the the quantum limit. With a typical scattering rate of $`2.55\times 10^4`$ photons/s into the solid angle that is collimated, and with $`80\%`$ photodiode quantum efficiency, the maximum possible SNR turns out to be 35-40 dB. The comparatively low value of 17 dB which we find is due to phase front distortions induced by the collimating lens and a resulting low degree of mode matching between the collimated fluorescence and the local oscillator.

Due to the quadrupole radiofrequency field in a Paul trap, the ion undergoes a driven oscillation at the frequency $`f_{Paul}=18.53`$ MHz. This so-called micromotion is in phase with the driving field, and its amplitude is proportional to the ion’s distance from the trap center. The sidebands to the elastic peak which this oscillation generates can be observed on the spectrum analyser, in the same manner as the carrier, by setting $`f_{mix}`$ to $`f_0\pm nf_{Paul},n=1,2,..`$. In Fig. 3 we show the results of such measurements. Due to the fact that the phase of the micromotion is well-defined, and because all rf sources are phase locked, the width of the micromotion sidebands is limited by the resolution bandwidth of the spectrum analyser, just like the width of the elastic peak in Fig. 2.

The sizes of the micromotion sidebands are expected to be proportional to $`|J_n(m)|^2`$ where $`J`$ is a Bessel function, $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ is the number of the sideband, and $`m`$ is the modulation index corresponding to the ion’s oscillation. With the micromotion described by $`\stackrel{}{a}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t`$, ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi f_{Paul}`$) and with $`\stackrel{}{k_l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k_d}`$ describing the laser and fluorescence wave vectors, respectively, $`m`$ is given by $`m=\stackrel{}{a}(\stackrel{}{k_d}\stackrel{}{k_l})`$ . The particular value of $`m`$ found from the sidebands in Fig. 3 is 0.47. This corresponds to a micromotion amplitude in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{k_l}\stackrel{}{k_d}`$ of about 26 nm. By minimising the micromotion, i.e. the value of $`m`$, with the aid of such a measurement, the ion can be placed in the trap center where the trapping conditions are optimal . At optimum conditions, i.e. if the SNR reaches 40 dB, and $`\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{k_d}\stackrel{}{k_l}`$, this measurement is sensitive to micromotion amplitudes of about 1 nm.

Apart from the forced micromotion oscillation, the three-dimensional trapping in the rf-generated pseudo-potential of a Paul trap results in three independent modes of free vibration along orthogonal axes at three (in general different) frequencies $`f_{macro}`$. In our case, these frequencies are 620.5, 670, 1301 kHz. Investigation of this so-called macromotion is our main purpose, because these motional degrees of freedom interact with the laser in a cooling process, and the corresponding sidebands contain information about the motional state of the ion, the efficiency of the cooling, and their dependences on the laser parameters. It is also the macromotion which is used in experiments on quantum state manipulation and entanglement, in particular in the framework of quantum information and quantum computation .

The macromotion is harder to detect in the heterodyne signal than the micromotion because it is not correlated with any applied rf source. In view of the noise considerations above, detection of a macromotion sideband requires that the rate of photons which contribute to the sideband heterodyne signal is larger than the spectral width of that sideband. Due to the inefficient mode matching described above, this situation is not realized in our present setup. However, the macromotion corresponds to a damped harmonic oscillator (laser cooling being the damping mechanism) which can be driven with an additional external field at some frequency $`f_{drive}`$ close to the macromotion frequency $`f_{macro}`$. Then, with $`f_{mix}`$ set to $`f_0\pm nf_{drive}`$, the excited macromotion is detectable as a $`\delta `$-signal on the spectrum analyser, and a scan of $`f_{drive}`$ over one of the macromotion resonances reveals the response of that oscillator mode to the drive, in particular the broadening of the resonance due to laser cooling. The result of such a measurement is shown in Fig. 4. Here, the upper trace corresponds to the height of the elastic peak ($`f_{mix}=f_0`$) as in Fig. 2, while the lower trace corresponds to the height of the sideband at $`f_{drive}`$ ($`f_{mix}=f_0+f_{drive}`$), both as functions of $`f_{drive}`$ around the 620.5 kHz macromotion mode frequency. The driving voltage was applied to an electrode about 1 mm away from the ion, its power was -60 dBm. The axis of the excited vibrational mode is at 45o between the direction of the laser and the observation, as was found from the image of the ion at much higher drive power.

Fig. 4 shows how the elastic scattering decreases while the sideband scattering increases around the macromotion resonance. The two traces were fitted with functions $`|A_nJ_n(m(f_{drive}))|^2,n=0`$ for the carrier, $`n=1`$ for the sideband, where $`m(f_{drive})`$ was assumed as

$$m(f_{drive})=\frac{m_{max}}{1+(\frac{f_{drive}f_{macro}}{\mathrm{\Delta }f/2})^2}$$
(1)
as expected for a damped harmonic oscillator. We find a maximum modulation index $`m_{max}=1.5`$ and a width of the macromotion resonance $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=750`$ Hz. This width corresponds to the effective linewidth that the ion’s oscillator eigenstates in the trap acquire due to the ongoing laser excitation which makes the ion change its motional state .

To compare this cooling rate with the one derived from a simple model, we describe the motion of the ion by a driven and damped harmonic oscillator. Some limiting conditions are fulfilled in our experiment: The cooling rate is much smaller than the linewidth of the transition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. the velocity changes only negligibly during one lifetime, and both the recoil frequency $`\mathrm{}k^2/2M=2\pi \times 5.9`$ kHz, $`M`$ being the ion mass, and the maximum Doppler shift $`kv_{max}`$ are smaller than the oscillation frequency (the latter being the Lamb-Dicke condition). Therefore we can calculate the cooling rate, i.e. the damping coefficient, from the radiation pressure that acts on the ion during its oscillation

$$F(v)=\mathrm{}k\mathrm{\Gamma }P_\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{\Delta }kv),$$
(2)
where $`P_\mathrm{P}`$ is the probability of finding the ion in the P1/2 state and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the detuning of the 493 nm laser from the atomic resonance frequency. With $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ negative and of the order of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and for $`kv\mathrm{\Gamma },|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ the velocity-dependent part of $`F(v)`$ amounts, in first order, to a friction force $`F_f=\alpha Mv`$ that the ion experiences , and

$$\alpha =2\frac{\mathrm{}k^2}{2M}\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dP_\mathrm{P}}{d\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(3)
corresponds to the linewidth induced by the laser cooling. All parameters in Eq.(3) refer to the 493 nm laser. We can neglect the contribution of the 650 nm laser to the cooling because this laser is set to yield maximum fluorescence ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{650}=2\pi \times 5`$ MHz), such that $`dP_\mathrm{P}/d\mathrm{\Delta }_{650}0`$. By calculating $`dP_\mathrm{P}/d\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from the same 8-level Bloch equations that determine our experimental parameters  $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{493}=2\pi \times 19`$ MHz, $`I_{493}=189\mathrm{mW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, $`I_{650}=107\mathrm{mW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, we get $`\alpha =2\pi \times 640`$ Hz which agrees well with the measurement.

In conclusion, the spectrum of resonance fluorescence from a single harmonically confined ion in a Paul trap was observed using heterodyne detection. Aside from the elastic peak, the spectrum exhibits sidebands due to the weakly excited macromotion of the ion in the trap. Investigation of these sidebands allows for an analysis of the cooling rate, without affecting the motional state of the ion by, e.g., probing pulses. The measured cooling rate in our experiment compares well with a simple model calculation. Moreover, micromotion sidebands are observed which, by minimizing their amplitude, can be used to actively compensate for residual micromotion down to the nm-level. These techniques will prove useful in the context of precision spectroscopy with ion traps and in particular for the preparation and manipulation of vibrational quantum states of motion as they are required for quantum information experiments with trapped ions.

We acknowledge support by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF) (project P11467-PHY) and by the EC (TMR network ”Quantum Structures”, ERB-FMRX-CT96-0077).


text:
# Spontaneous deformation of the Fermi surface due to strong correlation in the two-dimensional 𝑡-𝐽 model

## Abstract

Fermi surface of the two-dimensional $`t`$-$`J`$ model is studied using the variational Monte Carlo method. We study the Gutzwiller projected $`d`$-wave superconducting state with an additional variational parameter $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ corresponding to the next-nearest neighbor hopping term. It is found that the finite $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}<0`$ gives the lowest variational energy in the wide range of hole-doping rates. The obtained momentum distribution function shows that the Fermi surface deforms spontaneously. It is also shown that the van Hove singularity is always located very close to the Fermi energy. Using the Gutzwiller approximation, we show that this spontaneous deformation is due to the Gutzwiller projection operator or the strong correlation.

71.10.Fd, 71.10.Pm, 79.60.-i

The effect of strong correlation is one of the most important issues for understanding the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity (SC). Among various anomalous electronic properties, the experiments of angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) have revealed that a flat band around ($`\pi `$, 0) and (0, $`\pi `$) is pinned just below the Fermi energy. This phenomenon is unexpected in the band calculations and it is considered to be closely related to the opening of the pseudogap on the Fermi surface (FS) , which is also an extraordinary feature in high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. This anomalous nature of the FS will be the direct evidence for the non-Fermi liquid behavior. It is thus an interesting issue to study the FS in the presence of strong correlation.

The effect of the flat band and the geometry of the FS can be taken into account by using the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ model or the $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`U`$ Hubbard model in which the next-nearest neighbor hopping term $`t^{}`$ is introduced as a fitting parameter. If one chooses $`t^{}<0`$, the FS centered at ($`\pi `$, $`\pi `$) observed experimentally can be reproduced in the tight-binding model. However high temperature expansion studies on the momentum distribution function for the $`t`$-$`J`$ model have shown that the FS is similar to that with $`t^{}<0`$ even though the $`t^{}`$-term is absent in the Hamiltonian. On the other hand, the conventional mean-field theories, such as slave-boson theory, simply give the FS with $`t^{}=0`$. Therefore the strong correlation which is not included in the mean-field theories will be the origin of the change of the FS geometry.

Here we study this problem from a different point of view. Since the calculation in Ref. is carried out in the high temperature region, it is not clear whether or not the FS deforms down to zero temperature. To study the FS of the ground state is generally very difficult. The exact diagonalization study of small clusters does not give enough resolution in the $`𝒌`$ space. The quantum Monte Carlo simulations have been often useless for the two-dimensional $`t`$-$`J`$ model because of the minus sign problem. Therefore we use the variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method in this paper, which is free from the limitation of the system size as well as from the sign problem. The VMC method treats exactly the constraints of no doubly occupied sites and gives accurate estimates of the expectation values such as the variational energies and the momentum distribution functions.

Although it is a variational theory, the VMC method is powerful to see whether some kind of symmetry breaking takes place or not. In this paper we examine the Gutzwiller-projected $`d`$-wave superconducting state which contains an additional variational parameter $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ corresponding to the next-nearest neighbor hopping term. We can safely discuss the relative energy difference between the variational states with and without $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$, although the absolute values of the variational energies can still be lowered. We find that the wave function with $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}0.1`$ has the lowest variational energy even though the Hamiltonian does not contain $`t^{}`$-term. This means that the FS deforms spontaneously. The momentum distribution function $`n(𝒌)`$ calculated in the optimized wave function is consistent with that in the high temperature expansion. Our method gives an independent and complementary support of the result that the deformation of the FS is a distinctive feature of strongly correlated electron systems.

In addition to this, we can identify the physical origin of the FS deformation in our variational approach. We show the relation between the energy gain and the van Hove singularity. It has been argued that a remarkable enhancement of SC correlation is achieved if the van Hove singularity is close to the Fermi energy. Our results show some similarity to this picture. Furthermore, by comparing the obtained results with the Gutzwiller approximation, we can see that the finite $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ is caused solely by the Gutzwiller projection.

We use the two-dimensional $`t`$-$`J`$ model on a square lattice,

$$H=t\underset{ij\sigma }{}P_\mathrm{G}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+h.c.)P_\mathrm{G}+J\underset{ij}{}𝑺_i𝑺_j,$$
(1)
where $`ij`$ represents the sum over the nearest-neighbor sites. $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{i\sigma }`$) is a creation (annihilation) operator of $`\sigma `$ ($``$ or $``$) electron at $`i`$-site and $`𝑺_i=c_{i\alpha }^{}(\frac{1}{2}𝝈)_{\alpha \beta }c_{i\beta }`$. The Gutzwiller’s projection operator $`P_\mathrm{G}`$ is defined as $`P_\mathrm{G}=\mathrm{\Pi }_i(1\widehat{n}_i\widehat{n}_i)`$, which prohibits the doubly occupied sites. We set $`J/t=0.3`$.

We use a Gutzwiller-projected mean-field type wave function $`P_\mathrm{G}P_{N_\mathrm{e}}|\varphi _0`$ as a trial state with fixing the number of electrons $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ through $`P_{N_\mathrm{e}}`$. The state is written as

$`P_\mathrm{G}P_{N_\mathrm{e}}|\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`P_\mathrm{G}P_{N_\mathrm{e}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(u_k+v_kc_k^{}c_k^{})|0`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`P_\mathrm{G}P_{N_\mathrm{e}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}u_k\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_k}{u_k}}c_k^{}c_k^{}\right]|0`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`P_\mathrm{G}P_{N_\mathrm{e}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}u_k\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}a_{ij}c_i^{}c_j^{}\right]|0`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`P_\mathrm{G}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}u_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(N_\mathrm{e}/2)!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}a_{ij}c_i^{}c_i^{}\right)^{N_\mathrm{e}/2}|0,`$ (5)
where $`v_k/u_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_k/(ϵ_k\mu +\sqrt{(ϵ_k\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2})`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ is a Fourier transform of $`v_k/u_k`$.

Usually $`ϵ_k`$ is chosen to be $`ϵ_k=2(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$, which is in accordance with the Hamiltonian (1). However in this paper, we introduce an additional variational parameter $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ which changes the FS of the variational state. We assume $`ϵ_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ as

$`ϵ_k`$ $`=`$ $`2(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)4t_\mathrm{v}^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_d(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y).`$ (7)
The present wave function contains three variational parameters $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$.

At first, using the above wave function we calculate the variational energy $`E_{\mathrm{var}}`$ of the Hamiltonian (1)

$$E_{\mathrm{var}}=\frac{\varphi _0|P_{N_\mathrm{e}}P_\mathrm{G}HP_\mathrm{G}P_{N_\mathrm{e}}|\varphi _0}{\varphi _0|P_{N_\mathrm{e}}P_\mathrm{G}P_\mathrm{G}P_{N_\mathrm{e}}|\varphi _0},$$
(8)
by means of the VMC method. The distribution of the wave vectors $`𝒌`$ is determined in the periodic boundary conditions in the $`x`$ direction and in the antiperiodic ones in the $`y`$ direction so as to avoid the gap node of $`d`$-wave superconductivity. Although the results in the 10$`\times `$10 square lattice are mainly shown in the following, we also calculate larger sizes up to $`20\times 20`$ to investigate the size dependence.

Figure 1 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ dependence of $`E_{\mathrm{var}}`$ for various values of $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ at the doping rate $`\delta =0.12`$. Apparently $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}0.1`$ gives the lowest variational energy. Since the Hamiltonian does not contain next-nearest neighbor hopping terms, the present result means that the shape of the FS of the ground state is different from that of the non-interacting Hamiltonian. We have also checked that, if the Hamiltonian has the next-nearest neighbor hopping term $`t^{}`$, the optimized variational state has $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$, whose amplitude is larger than $`t^{}`$.

The most significant effect of this result appears in the shape of momentum distribution functions. Figure 2 shows a contour map of the gradient of the momentum distribution function $`|_kn(𝒌)|`$ for $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}=0.1`$ calculated on the 20$`\times `$20 square lattice. Although we have used the optimized variational parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ and $`\mu `$ on the 10$`\times `$10 lattice, it is justified because their size dependeces are negligible. Brighter areas in Fig. 2 correspond to the momentum $`𝒌`$ with larger values of $`|_kn(𝒌)|`$. Although we cannot specify exactly the location of the FS due to the $`d`$-wave SC gap, we expect that the FS lies close to the area where $`|_kn(𝒌)|`$ is large.

Our result of momentum distribution function is similar to that obtained in high temperature expansion by Putikka et al. Since we take an opposite approach to high temperature studies, i.e., in the zero temperature, it is confirmed that the FS shown in Fig. 2 is an intrinsic feature of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. Note here that the smearing of the FS around ($`\pi `$, 0) in our calculation is due to the $`d`$-wave SC gap. This suggests that the similar smearing observed in Ref. may be due to the pseudogap with $`d`$-wave symmetry, in addition to the smearing due to finite temperature.

For the wide range of doping $`\delta =0.040.20`$, we find that $`E_{\mathrm{var}}`$ is minimized around $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}0.1`$ and the chemical potential $`\mu 0.5\pm 0.05`$. Because of the insensitiveness of $`\mu `$ as a function of doping, the area of the momentum space enclosed by the FS is also insensitive to the doping rate. This result supports the violation of the Luttinger theorem suggested by Putikka et al. Actually $`n(𝒌)`$ at the doping $`\delta =0.2`$ in Ref. is very close to our results in Fig. 2 at $`\delta =0.12`$.

Figure 3 shows the energy difference between the value at $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}=0`$ and at $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}=0.1`$, i.e. the energy gain due to the finite $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$, for several system sizes. Although the Monte Carlo results scatter a little, there is apparently a tendency that the energy gain due to the finite $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ becomes maximum around $`\delta =0.12`$. As we increase the system size, the energy gain slightly decreases, but it will remain finite in the thermodynamic limit.

Let us discuss here the relation between the energy gain and the van Hove singularity. For the optimized value $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}0.1`$, $`ϵ_k`$ at $`𝒌=(\pi ,0)`$ becomes $`0.4`$. On the other hand, the optimized chemical potential $`\mu `$ is around $`0.5`$. This means that the suddle point or the position of the flat band near $`𝒌=(\pi ,0)`$ is very close to the chemical potential. Since the $`d`$-wave SC gap has a maximum at $`(\pi ,0)`$, the enhancement of the density of states near the Fermi energy due to the van Hove singularity causes the energy gain. Actually, if we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d=0`$, the lowest energy is achieved at $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}=0`$. This indicates that the FS deforms itself so as to fix the van Hove singularity to the chemical potential in the presence of the $`d`$-wave SC gap. This looks consistent with the mechanism of SC due to the van Hove singularity.

If we use a Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{t\text{-}J}`$ without projection operator and the mean-field wave function $`|\varphi _0`$, it is apparent that the variational energy $`\varphi _0|\stackrel{~}{H}_{t\text{-}J}|\varphi _0/\varphi _0|\varphi _0`$ is minimized at $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}=0`$. Therefore the energy gain due to the non-zero value of $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ is solely from the Gutzwiller’s projection operator. In order to clarify the effect of the projection, we examine the Gutzwiller approximation, in which the effect of constraints are taken into account by statistical weighting factors. For the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, we have

$$\frac{\varphi _0|P_\mathrm{G}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }P_\mathrm{G}|\varphi _0}{\varphi _0|P_\mathrm{G}P_\mathrm{G}|\varphi _0}=g_t\varphi _0|c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }|\varphi _0=g_tc_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }_0$$
(9)
and

$$\frac{\varphi _0|P_\mathrm{G}𝑺_i𝑺_jP_\mathrm{G}|\varphi _0}{\varphi _0|P_\mathrm{G}P_\mathrm{G}|\varphi _0}=g_s\varphi _0|𝑺_i𝑺_j|\varphi _0=g_s𝑺_i𝑺_j_0,$$
(10)
where $`g_t`$ and $`g_s`$ are the renormalization factors due to the projection. In the simplest Gutzwiller approximation, $`g_t`$ and $`g_s`$ are constant, i.e., $`g_t=2\delta /(1+\delta )`$ and $`g_s=4/(1+\delta )^2`$.  In this case, the Gutzwiller projection does not alter the mean-field results. However it was recently shown that the dependence of the renormalization factors on the expectation values, such as $`\chi =c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=c_i^{}c_j^{}_0`$, plays a crucial role in evaluating the variational energies.  If we use this Gutzwiller approximation, we can show that

$$\delta E_{\mathrm{var}}\frac{H}{\chi ^{}}\delta t_\mathrm{v}^{}+8Nt_\mathrm{v}^{}\delta t_\mathrm{v}^{}$$
(11)
where $`\chi ^{}=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }_0`$ with $`(ij)`$ being the next-nearest neighbor sites and

$$\frac{H}{\chi ^{}}t\frac{g_t}{\chi ^{}}\underset{ij\sigma }{}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }_0+c.c.)+J\frac{g_s}{\chi ^{}}\underset{ij}{}𝑺_i𝑺_j_0.$$
(12)
The first term on the r.h.s. of eq. (11) is linear with respect to $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ so that $`E_{\mathrm{var}}`$ is minimized at a finite value of $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$ which satisfies

$$t_\mathrm{v}^{}=\frac{1}{8N}\frac{H}{\chi ^{}}.$$
(13)
Apparently the renormalization factors $`g_t`$ and $`g_s`$ due to the projection operator and their nonlinear dependence on $`\chi ^{}`$ are the origin of the spontaneous deformation of the FS. These phenomena cannot be found in the mean-field theories. The explicit calculations will be published elsewhere.

In summary, we investigated the shape of the FS in the two-dimensional $`t`$-$`J`$ model by means of the VMC calculation introducing an additional variational parameter $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}`$. We found that the variational energy is minimized around $`t_\mathrm{v}^{}0.1`$ for various doping rates. The system size dependence indicate this effect is realized even in the thermodynamic limit. The magnitude of the energy gain is large enough compared with other VMC studies. For example, the energy difference between the pure $`d`$-wave SC phase and the coexistent phase of AF and $`d`$-wave SC is comparable to the present energy gain at the doping rate $`\delta 0.08`$. Then we have clarified the origin of the energy gain by examining the van Hove singularity and the effect of the projection using the Gutzwiller approximation. Combining our results at zero temperature and those in high temperature expansion, we consider that the FS deformation is the most significant phenomenon in the presence of strong correlation.

Since the nesting property of the FS becomes worse in the present wave function than in the original $`t`$-$`J`$ model, the coexistence of AF and $`d`$-wave SC near half-filling will be suppressed. Alternatively we expect some incommensurate AF correlations which were unexpected in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. This is presumably related to the stripe state observed experimentally.


text:
# The Anderson prescription for surfaces and impurities

\[

## Abstract

We test the Anderson prescription , a BCS formalism for describing superconductivity in inhomogeneous systems, and compare results with those obtained from the Bogoliubov-de Gennes formalism, using the attractive Hubbard model with surfaces and nonmagnetic impurities. The Anderson approach captures the essential features of the spatial variation of the gap parameter and electron density around a surface or an impurity over a wide range of parameters. It breaks down, however, in the strong-coupling regime for a weak impurity potential.

\]

In microscopic treatments of inhomogeneity effects in superconductors, impurities are often averaged over in some manner . In the last decade, partly because of the increased computational resources now available, and partly because of the technical advances which allow small particle fabrication and single atom manipulation , the role of inhomogeneous effects in superconductors has received more wide-spread attention . One of the theoretical frameworks for addressing these questions is the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) formalism . This formalism allows one to answer questions regarding surfaces, interfaces, and impurity effects at a level of detail not previously addressed. At present, however, the scope of problems for which one can compute results accurately is limited by computer resources, since matrices whose dimension grows with system size require full diagonalization and should be solved self-consistently. On the other hand, the Anderson prescription , first presented to examine the impact of impurities on superconductivity, is a BCS formalism for an inhomogeneous system and requires one diagonalization of the single-particle problem. The purpose of this paper is to examine the limits of applicability of the Anderson approach, as compared to the BdG formalism. We first summarize the two approaches, and then follow with some concrete examples, utilizing surfaces and impurities as sources of inhomogeneities.

We find that the Anderson prescription works very well for surfaces and in some regimes for a single impurity. It breaks down for strong coupling with weak impurity scattering.

For our purposes we adopt a convenient model to describe s-wave superconductivity, the attractive Hubbard Hamiltonian (the results of our study will presumably apply to d-wave or other symmetry states):

$`H\mu N_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,\delta }{\sigma }}{}}t_\delta (a_{i+\delta ,\sigma }^{}a_{i\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(\mu ϵ_i)n_{i\sigma }|U|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_i.`$
Here, $`a_{i\sigma }^{}`$ ($`a_{i\sigma }`$) creates (annihilates) an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`i`$ and $`n_{i\sigma }`$ is the number operator for an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`i`$. The $`t_\delta `$ is the hopping rate of electrons from one site to a neighbouring site (often nearest neighbours only are included, and we will adopt this model here), and $`|U|`$ is the attractive coupling strength between electrons on the same site. As usual, this attraction is justified in terms of an electron-phonon coupling, where retardation effects are unimportant, as is the case with many conventional superconductors. The second term includes the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the impurity potential at site $`i`$, $`ϵ_i`$. We assume that impurities act to raise or lower single site energy levels. It is worth noting that impurity effects can certainly enter in other ways. For example if an impurity occupies one of the sites, undoubtedly the hopping amplitude to and from that site will also be altered, as will the interaction between two electrons occupying the same orbital on that site. In many studies (see, for example, Ref. ), the $`ϵ_i`$ are randomly distributed with some probability distribution, and then the results are averaged, to reflect the fact that we generally have no control over the precise distribution of impurities in the bulk. However, in systems where a single impurity can be added to the surface, for example (see, eg., Ref. ), we would want to study this model with only one impurity, at a particular site (in this case, on the surface).

Equation (2) also allows us the freedom to choose periodic boundary conditions (PBC) (to recover well-known results) or ‘open’ boundary conditions (OBC). The latter are natural in a tight-binding context; they require no assumptions about the order parameter, for example. ‘Open’ here simply means that electrons cannot hop beyond the surface. Here again more sophisticated boundary effects could be included — for example, in a real system the hopping integral at the surface will no doubt differ from that in the bulk, but we leave aside these finer points.

The BdG equations are obtained by defining an effective Hamiltonian, with effective potentials . By diagonalizing this effective Hamiltonian through the generalized Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation , one arrives at the two BdG equations :

$`E_nu_n(i)={\displaystyle \underset{i^{}}{}}A_{ii^{}}u_n(i^{})+V_iu_n(i)+\mathrm{\Delta }_iv_n(i)`$ (3)
$`E_nv_n(i)={\displaystyle \underset{i^{}}{}}A_{ii^{}}v_n(i^{})V_iv_n(i)+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}u_n(i)`$ (4)
where

$$A_{ii^{}}=t\underset{\delta }{}\left(\delta _{i^{},i\delta }+\delta _{i^{},i+\delta }\right)\delta _{ii^{}}\left(\mu ϵ_i\right).$$
(5)
The self-consistent potentials, $`V_i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=|U|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}u_n(i)v_n^{}(i)(12f_n)`$ (6)
$`V_i=|U|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[|u_n(i)|^2f_n+|v_n(i)|^2(1f_n)\right].`$ (7)
We use the index $`n`$ to label the eigenvalues (there are $`2N`$ of them), the index $`i`$ to label the sites (1 through N), and the composite eigenvector is given by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_n}{v_n}\right)`$, of total length $`2N`$. The sums in Eqs. (6,7) are over positive eigenvalues only. The $`f_n`$ is the Fermi function, with argument $`\beta E_n`$, where $`\beta 1/k_BT`$, with $`T`$ the temperature. The single site electron density, $`n_i`$, is given, through Eq. (7), by $`V_i=|U|n_i/2`$.

The equations (6,7) for the effective potentials were determined through a variational principle so that the effective Hamiltonian allows fluctuations in any number of mean fields . As written, there are two possible mean field potentials, the Hartree potential, $`V_i`$, and the pair potential, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, from which the ground state energy and other properties may be obtained.

An alternate prescription was originally proposed by Anderson , whereby one first solves for the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the ‘non-interacting’ problem, i.e.,

$$E_n^0w_n(i)=\underset{i^{}}{}A_{ii^{}}w_n(i^{}).$$
(8)
Using the unitary matrix, $`U_{in}`$, for a basis which diagonalizes the single-particle Hamiltonian, one can determine the transformed electron-electron interaction:

$$V_{nm,n^{}m^{}}=|U|\underset{i}{}U_{in}^{}U_{im}^{}U_{in^{}}U_{im^{}},$$
(9)
which now mediates the (generally off-diagonal) electron-electron interaction. The gap and number equations are obtained just as in BCS theory, except that now the label is not the wave vector k, but rather some quantum number $`n`$, which simply enumerates the single particle eigenvalues . From the solution, one can obtain the ground state energy and, by transforming back to space coordinates, site-dependent quantities.

The simplest origin of gap inhomogeneity in a superconductor is the surface. The presence of surfaces beyond which electrons are unable to move yields a gap parameter (i.e., pair potential) which can exhibit a variety of behaviour near the surface. Traditionally in Ginzburg-Landau treatments the gap function is given a priori a boundary condition ; here the behaviour near a boundary (or impurity) is a derived quantity, i.e. as the solution to the BdG (or Anderson) equations.

The advantage (for the Anderson approach) of examining the impact of surfaces on the gap parameter is that an analytical solution exists for a simple tight-binding model . The eigenstates for a chain  of length N, with lattice spacing $`a`$ and nearest-neighbour hopping $`t`$, are

$$a_{k\sigma }=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N+1}}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{sin}(kR_i)a_{i\sigma },$$
(10)
and the eigenenergies are

$$E_k^{(0)}=2t\mathrm{cos}(ka),ka=\frac{\pi n}{N+1},$$
(11)
where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. We use these analytical results in the Anderson approach (making it not significantly more difficult than BCS theory), while in the BdG approach these analytical solutions are not particularly helpful.

In Fig. 1 we show the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ as a function of site number $`i`$, for electron density $`n`$ ranging from half-filling to zero. The chain length is $`64`$ sites, and we have used OBC and the coupling strength $`|U|=1.5t`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is shown for half the chain length (from $`i=1`$ to $`32`$): the gap parameter is symmetric about the middle. In Fig. 1(a) we plot the result from the BdG equations, while in Fig. 1(b) we show the corresponding results from the Anderson prescription. The first thing to note is that in either case the behaviour near the surface is markedly different as a function of electron density. At half-filling the gap parameter actually peaks at the surface, with several ‘Friedel-like’ oscillations ensuing towards the center of the sample, while at low fillings the gap parameter is much smoother by comparison. A comparison of the two figures shows quantitative differences, but overall, qualitatively they are very similar. It is evident that the Anderson prescription captures the essence of the BdG results remarkably well.

The accuracy of the Anderson results can be seen more closely in Fig. 2, where the cross sections of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ versus $`i`$ in Fig. 1 for (a) $`n=0.2`$ and (b) $`n=1.0`$ are shown. It is clear that the essential features of the BdG results are reproduced in the Anderson approach.

To examine the effect of impurities, we show in Fig. 3 $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ as a function of $`i`$, for $`N=32`$ with an impurity at the central site with varying energy (both negative and positive). We have used PBC and an intermediate coupling strength, $`|U|=2t`$, at electron density $`n=0.9`$. We have intentionally stayed away from half-filling, at which the ground state is not a superconducting state, but a charge density wave. One may recall that with periodic boundary conditions and with no impurities, the ground state for the attractive Hubbard model at half-filling is doubly degenerate: both superconducting and charge density wave solutions coexist at this point. However, the presence of an impurity tilts the balance in favour of the charge density wave, and the BdG equations converge to a solution in which the pair potential, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, is identically zero at all sites. The Hartree potential, $`V_i`$, on the other hand, oscillates as a function of site position. The Anderson prescription is unable to reproduce this (correct) feature at half filling, and gives a superconducting solution with nonzero gap parameters. Also if the self-consistency of the Hartree potential is neglected in the BdG equations, this physics is missed, and the ensuing BdG result is similar to the Anderson solution.

Returning to Fig. 3 we have plotted the BdG results in Fig. 3(a), while in Fig. 3(b) we show the results from the Anderson equations. The gap is suppressed at the site with a positive impurity potential (as is the site density $`n_i`$) and exhibits ‘Friedel-like’ oscillations around it. The Anderson prescription captures this behaviour qualitatively, while it tends to underestimate the amplitudes of the oscillations (compare the solid curves in Fig. 3(a) and (b) for $`ϵ_{16}=0.5t`$, and note the magnified scale in the latter graph). The Anderson results become better for stronger impurity potentials and for electron density $`n`$ further away from half filling. For a negative impurity potential, when the potential strength is very weak, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ (and $`n_i`$) has a peak at the impurity site, as can be seen in Fig. 3(a) for $`ϵ_{16}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}t`$ (the dotted curve). Though smaller in scale, the Anderson result in Fig. 3(b) has similar behaviour. As the potential strength increases, however, an attractive impurity tends to break the pairing, and suppresses the gap not only at the impurity site but also at surrounding sites (see the dashed curve for $`ϵ_{16}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}t`$ in Fig. 3(a)). In such cases, the Anderson method overestimates the gap parameter around the impurity site. This can be seen in Fig. 3(b), where the gap has the correct oscillating pattern, but with much smaller amplitudes.

We study the attractive impurity case further in Fig. 4, where we show $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`n_i`$ versus $`i`$ for $`N=32`$ with PBC and $`ϵ_{16}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}t`$, for (a) $`|U|=1t`$ and (b) $`|U|=3t`$. When the coupling is weaker than or comparable to the impurity potential, the Anderson approach captures the main features of the gap parameter around the impurity. This is the case for $`|U|=1t`$ in Fig. 4(a), and indeed the Anderson results show excellent agreement with the BdG results. As the coupling becomes stronger compared to the impurity potential, the impact of the impurity becomes more drastic, even with relatively weak strength. The gap is more suppressed around the impurity, and the density distribution exhibits ‘Friedel-like’ oscillations more enhanced. This can be seen for $`|U|=3t`$ in Fig. 4(b) (solid curves). On the other hand, the Anderson method yields a gap parameter that is more uniform as a function of site position, and does not reproduce the correct oscillations in the site densities.

In conclusion, we have formulated the BdG equations for a tight-binding model with an on-site attractive interaction. We have retained the self-consistent Hartree potential in the BdG equations, and found that a single impurity breaks the superconducting/charge density wave degeneracy which would otherwise exist at half-filling in this model. We have also formulated the prescription set out by Anderson, without impurity-averaging, and found good qualitative agreement with the BdG results.

To our knowledge, the spatial dependence of the order parameter and the electron density has not been previously explored in detail within the Anderson prescription. We have found, somewhat to our surprise, good agreement with results from the BdG formalism, for surfaces and single impurities (aside from the weak scattering limit). Throughout this study, it is important to note that in the vicinity of surfaces or impurities, “charge ordered” states and superconductivity in general coexist (at the mean field level). In future work we will examine various correlation functions and the local density of states, the latter of which has been  and will continue to be measured using scanning tunneling microscopy.

Acknowledgements We thank Jorge Hirsch for suggesting the weak impurity potential regime as one in which the Anderson prescription should break down. We also thank Kamran Kaveh for stimulating discussions. Calculations were performed on the 64-node SGI parallel processor at the University of Alberta. This research was supported by the Avadh Bhatia Fellowship and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. One of us (F.M.) acknowledges the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics, where some of this work was performed.