text:
# Radiative Corrections to Parity Nonconserving Transitions in Atoms

## I Introduction

The calculation of radiative corrections in atoms with low nuclear charge $`Z`$ is facilitated by the fact that binding corrections, which enter as powers and logarithms of $`Z\alpha `$, are relatively small, and can be treated in perturbation theory. For atoms with high nuclear charge the perturbation expansion converges more slowly, and for highly-charged ions the expansion is generally avoided, which is possible when numerical methods are used to represent the electron propagator. This approach, first introduced by Wichmann and Kroll W-K  for the vacuum polarization and Brown and Mayers Brown  for the self-energy, has been applied to the calculation of both energy levels, notably by Mohr and collaborators PJM , and more recently to matrix elements, specifically hyperfine splitting (hfs) and the Zeeman effect hfsallZ ; BCS .

It is of interest to further extend this kind of radiative correction calculation to the parity nonconserving (PNC) process $`6s_{1/2}7s_{1/2}`$ in neutral cesium Wieman . Corrections to this transition are of importance for the question of whether a breakdown of the standard model is present for cesium PNC. Specifically, if the radiative correction to the electron-Z vertex is taken to be its lowest-order value, $`\alpha /2\pi `$, then based on the the present status of other corrections to PNC which have included a number of significant shifts only recently considered that arise from the Breit interaction Breit  and vacuum polarization vacpol , a discrepancy with experiment of approximately $`2\sigma `$ would result. Given the presence of other indications of possible problems with electroweak tests of the standard model, specifically the NuTev result NuTev  and hadronic asymmetries in $`Zb\overline{b}`$ hadasy , a discrepancy in cesium PNC could be an indication of new physics.

However, it is known that binding corrections to the similar matrix element involved in hfs are very large for highly-charged ions. That this is so is not surprising, given the first two terms of the one-loop vertex correction to hfs BCS ,

$$\delta \nu =\frac{\alpha }{\pi }E_F\left[\frac{1}{2}+\left(\mathrm{ln2}\frac{13}{4}\right)\pi Z\alpha \right],$$
(1)
where $`E_F`$ is the lowest-order hfs energy. Already at $`Z=9`$ the leading binding correction leads to a change in sign of the hfs, and at $`Z=55`$ the formula would predict $`2.72\frac{\alpha }{\pi }E_F`$, as compared to the low-order, uncorrected value of $`+0.5\frac{\alpha }{\pi }E_F`$. Of course, with $`Z\alpha `$ = 0.4, the above equation, even with known higher-order terms included, cannot replace an exact evaluation. As mentioned above, such evaluations have been carried out by a number of groups, and the complete answer turns out to be $`3.02\frac{\alpha }{\pi }E_F`$ BCS .

It is possible to carry out a parallel analysis for radiative corrections to PNC. If we define the lowest-order PNC matrix element as $`Q_0`$ and the one-loop radiatively corrected matrix element as $`Q_R`$, with

$$Q_R=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }Q_0R(Z\alpha ),$$
(2)
the first two terms of $`R(Z\alpha )`$ are

$$R(Z\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}\left(2\mathrm{ln2}+\frac{7}{12}\right)\pi Z\alpha ,$$
(3)
where the first term is part of the standard radiative correction for atomic PNC Marciano-Sirlin  and the leading binding correction was first calculated in Ref. Milstein . For the case of cesium this formula changes the coefficient of $`\alpha /\pi `$ from -0.5 to -2.98, changing a negligible -0.12 percent to a significant -0.69 percent shift. This largely removes the $`2\sigma `$ discrepancy between theory and experiment.

There are a number of issues that must be addressed before accepting the -0.69 percent shift at face value. Firstly, just as with hfs, an approach that does not rely on expansion in $`Z\alpha `$ is required. Even though the first two terms in Eq. (1) for the vertex correction to hfs give an answer within 12 percent of the total answer, there is no reason we know of for this to be true in general. Secondly, it is not clear that it is correct to use $`Z=55`$ in the above equation. When the cesium 6s Lamb shift, which is also governed by short distance effects, is studied with all-orders methods Pyykko ; CS , a much smaller effective nuclear charge is seen, specifically about 14. Thirdly, an important difference between PNC and hfs is the role of gauge invariance. In the latter case the initial and final states are real physical states. However, the Z boson vertex does not involve two physical states, instead involving either a $`6s_{1/2}`$ or $`7s_{1/2}`$ state and an intermediate state with $`p_{1/2}`$ quantum numbers. While it can be shown that Eq. (3) is still valid in this case, higher-order binding corrections will be gauge dependent.

To address the last issue, we choose here to work with a gauge-invariant quantity, the matrix element of the weak Hamiltonian

$$H_W=Q_W\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{8}}\gamma _0\gamma _5\rho _N(\stackrel{}{r})$$
(4)
between the $`2s_{1/2}`$ and $`2p_{1/2}`$ states of a hydrogenic ion, where $`\rho _N(\stackrel{}{r})`$ describes the distribution of the weak nuclear charge, which is close to the neutron distribution. While a finite distribution will be used for $`\rho _N(\stackrel{}{r})`$, the atomic $`2s_{1/2}`$ and $`2p_{1/2}`$ states will be chosen to be solutions of the Dirac equation with a point nucleus, so the energies of these two states are equal. This allows radiative corrections to PNC to be studied nonperturbatively to all orders in $`Z\alpha `$ in a manner parallel to that used for hfs BCS ; NewCS , and in particular gives information about the $`Z\alpha `$ behavior of the function $`R(Z\alpha )`$ that will be useful when the cesium problem is addressed, as will be discussed in the conclusion.

The plan of the paper is the following. The lowest-order matrix element $`Q_0`$ is treated in Sec. II. In Sec. III we give a derivation of the radiative correction formulas, and in Sec. IV evaluate $`R(Z\alpha )`$ to first order in $`Z\alpha `$, confirming the result of Ref. Milstein . In Sec. V we rearrange the formulas in a way that allows for an exact numerical evaluation, and present the details of such a calculation for the range $`Z=10100`$. In the last section, it is shown that the numerical evaluation at low $`Z`$ agrees with the perturbative expansion, and the higher-order binding corrections inferred. Prospects for extension of the calculation to the actual experiment, where a laser photon is present driving the $`6s_{1/2}7s_{1/2}`$ transition, are also discussed.

## II Lowest-order calculation

The matrix element of the weak charge operator in lowest order is

$$Q_0Q_{wv}=d^3r\psi _w^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\gamma _5\psi _v(\stackrel{}{r})\rho _N(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(5)
where we shall from now on suppress the overall factor $`Q_WG_F/\sqrt{8}`$, use $`w`$ to denote the $`2p_{1/2}`$ state, and $`v`$ the $`2s_{1/2}`$ state. The nuclear distribution is chosen to be uniform, with a radius $`R_0`$ fixed so that the root-mean-square radius agrees with a fermi distribution with a thickness parameter 2.3 fm and a $`c`$ parameter given in Table 1. Because of the simplicity of the uniform distribution the matrix element can be evaluated analytically, and is

$$Q_0=\frac{6iZ^4\alpha }{\pi N_2^5}\left(\frac{2ZR_0}{N_2a_0}\right)^{2\gamma 2}\frac{\sqrt{1+2\gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\gamma +2)}e^{\frac{2ZR_0}{N_2a_0}}a_0^3.$$
(6)
Here $`\gamma =\sqrt{1(Z\alpha )^2}`$, $`N_2=\sqrt{2(1+\gamma )}`$, and $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius. We note the singularity of this expression as $`R_00`$, which at small $`Z`$ manifests itself as a logarithmic dependence on $`R_0`$, as can be seen from the Taylor expansion in $`Z\alpha `$ of the above,

$$Q_0=\frac{\sqrt{3}iZ^4\alpha }{32\pi }e^x\left[1+(Z\alpha )^2\left(\mathrm{ln}x\gamma _E+\frac{55}{24}\frac{x}{8}\right)+O(Z\alpha )^4\right],$$
(7)
where $`x=ZR_0/a_0`$ and $`\gamma _E=0.577\mathrm{}`$ is Euler’s constant. Results of $`Q_0`$ are tabulated in Table 1.

## III Derivation of radiative correction

A principal advantage of treating the degenerate case, where the states involved in the matrix elements have the same energy, is the simplicity of the formalism. In the more general case, when the energies are different, the radiative correction to the weak interaction matrix element has to involve the laser field photon that drives the transition, otherwise one would not be dealing with a gauge-invariant amplitude. In the degenerate case we can restrict our attention to the gauge-invariant subset of diagrams shown in Fig. 1, which involve the vertex (Fig. 1b) and wave function (Figs. 1a, 1c) corrections. While the treatment of these diagrams is straightforward for scattering processes, more care is required when bound states are involved. As mentioned in the introduction, the similar problem of radiative correction to hyperfine splitting has already been treated in the literature hfsallZ ; BCS , but in the present case the initial and final states are different, and the formalism requires some modifications.

The bound state wave functions $`\psi _v`$ and $`\psi _w`$ are solutions of the Dirac equation in the field of a point nucleus. Therefore they can be interpreted as residues at poles of Dirac-Coulomb propagators as a function of energy $`Ep^0`$,

$$S_F(\stackrel{}{r}^{},\stackrel{}{r},E)=\stackrel{}{r}^{}\left|\frac{1}{\overline{)}pm\gamma ^0V}\right|\stackrel{}{r}\frac{\psi (\stackrel{}{r}^{})\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{r})}{EE_\psi }.$$
(8)
When radiative corrections are involved, the Dirac-Coulomb propagator is corrected by the electron self-interaction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$\stackrel{}{r}^{}\left|\frac{1}{\overline{)}pm\gamma ^0V\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)}\right|\stackrel{}{r}.$$
(9)
The new position of the pole and corresponding residues are

$`E_\psi ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_\psi +\overline{\psi }|\mathrm{\Sigma }(E_\psi )|\psi `$ (10)
$`|\psi ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi +S_F^{}(E_\psi )\mathrm{\Sigma }(E_\psi )|\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{|\psi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}|_{E=E_\psi }\overline{\psi }|\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)|\psi ,`$ (11)
where by $`S_F^{}`$ one denotes a reduced Coulomb-Dirac propagator, namely the propagator with the $`\psi `$-state excluded. With the help of the above equations, we now present the one-loop radiative corrections to $`Q_0`$. They consist of the vertex correction $`Q_V`$, the left and right wave function corrections $`Q_{SL}+Q_{SR}`$, which include as well the derivative terms, associated with the last term in Eq. (11). In the Feynman gauge they are ($`ϵE_v=E_w`$)

$$Q_V=4\pi i\alpha \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+i\delta }w|e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}\gamma _\mu S_F(ϵk_0)\gamma _0\gamma _5\rho _NS_F(ϵk_0)\gamma ^\mu e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}|v,$$
(12)
$`Q_{SL}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi i\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+i\delta }w|\gamma _0\gamma _5\rho _NS_F^{}(ϵ)e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}\gamma _\mu S_F(ϵk_0)\gamma ^\mu e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}|v}`$ (13)
$`+2\pi i\alpha Q_0{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+i\delta }w|e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}\gamma _\mu S_F(ϵk_0)\gamma _0S_F(ϵk_0)\gamma ^\mu e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}|w},`$
$`Q_{SR}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi i\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+i\delta }w|e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}\gamma _\mu S_F(ϵk_0)\gamma ^\mu e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}S_F^{}(ϵ)\gamma _0\gamma _5\rho _N|v}`$ (14)
$`+2\pi i\alpha Q_0{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+i\delta }v|e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}\gamma _\mu S_F(ϵk_0)\gamma _0S_F(ϵk_0)\gamma ^\mu e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}}|v}.`$
There is still an ambiguity in the above formulas, related to the fact that at least one of the states is unstable with respect to radiative decay. This means that, for example, derivative terms, which have the interpretation of bound state wave function renormalization, acquire a small imaginary part. We think that this imaginary term may have a small effect on the weak matrix element. Nevertheless, in our treatment we completely ignore this imaginary part for simplicity. To include it properly would require a more detailed treatment of the excitation and decay process. Before the numerical integration, we present in the next section the analytic calculation of the first two terms in the $`Z\alpha `$ expansion.

## IV $`𝒁𝜶`$ expansion

In the $`Z\alpha `$ expansion one performs a simplification, similar to that used for the Lamb shift, which leads to an exact expression for the expansion terms. Specifically, the first two terms are given by the on-mass-shell scattering amplitude, which because it involves the weak charge of the nucleus, is dominated by the large momentum region, with characteristic momenta of the order of the electron mass, and to smaller extent of the order of the inverse of nuclear size. The small momentum region contributes at order $`O(Z\alpha )^2`$ and will be included in the numerical treatment. We aim here to confirm the previously obtained result Milstein  shown in Eq. 3, which will be used later to test the numerical accuracy of the nonperturbative treatment. In this section we do not pull out a factor $`\alpha /\pi `$ from $`R(Z\alpha )`$.

The relative correction to order $`\alpha `$ is determined by considering the radiative correction to the $`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5`$ vertex,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p_2,p_1)=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }\frac{d^4q}{i\pi ^2}\frac{N^\mu (p_2,p_1)}{[(qk)^2m^2+iϵ][q^2m^2+iϵ][(qp_2)^2\lambda ^2+iϵ]},$$
(15)
where

$$N^\mu (p_2,p_1)=\gamma ^\alpha (\overline{)}q\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5(\overline{)}q+m)\gamma _\alpha ,$$
(16)
and $`k=p_2p_1`$. The most general form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ in momentum space is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p_2,p_1)=F_1(k^2)\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5+F_2(k^2)\frac{k^\mu }{m}\gamma ^5.$$
(17)
The form factors $`F_1(k^2)`$ and $`F_2(k^2)`$ are calculated following the same steps as in the case of the electromagnetic vertex. Introducing Feynman parameters and taking into account the mass-shell condition, one obtains in the limit of zero momentum transfer

$`F_1(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}`$ (18)
$`F_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7\alpha }{12\pi }}.`$ (19)
For a static nucleus, only $`F_1(0)`$ contributes to the relative correction to first order in $`\alpha `$. The relative correction to the PNC amplitude is

$$R(Z\alpha )=\frac{\overline{u}(p,\sigma )\mathrm{\Gamma }^0u(p,\sigma )}{\overline{u}(p,\sigma )\gamma ^0\gamma ^5u(p,\sigma )},$$
(20)
which can be transformed into

$$R(Z\alpha )=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\frac{1}{4m}(\overline{)}p+m)(1+\overline{)}a\gamma ^5)\right]}{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma ^0\gamma ^5\frac{1}{4m}(\overline{)}p+m)(1+\overline{)}a\gamma ^5)\right]},$$
(21)
where $`a^\mu =(a_0,\stackrel{}{a})`$ with $`ap=0`$ is the polarization four vector of the electron. We then recover the well-known Marciano-Sirlin  lowest-order correction

$$R(Z\alpha )=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }.$$
(22)
The leading binding correction can be derived from the forward scattering amplitude, which involves an additional Coulomb exchange. It consists of the 4 diagrams presented in Figs. 2a - 2d, which we evaluate using Yennie gauge. This gauge has the useful property that each diagram is infrared finite as the photon mass $`\lambda `$ is taken to 0. The contribution from Fig. 2a to the ratio $`R(Z\alpha )`$ can be written as

$$R_1=\frac{Z\alpha ^2}{a_0}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{d^4q}{\pi ^2i}\frac{N_1(q,k)}{[q^2+iϵ]^2[(p+q)^2m^2+iϵ]^2[(p+k+q)^2m^2+iϵ]},$$
(23)
where

$`N_1(q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{\mu \nu }q^2+2q_\mu q_\nu )\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^0(\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q+\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^0\gamma ^5`$ (24)
$`\times (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}(\overline{)}p+m)(1+\overline{)}a\gamma ^5)].`$
For Figs. 2b and 2c, we have

$`R_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z\alpha ^2}{a_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{d^4q}{\pi ^2i}\frac{1}{[q^2+iϵ]^2}}`$ (25)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{N_i(q,k)}{[(p+q)^2m^2+iϵ][(p+k+q)^2m^2+iϵ][(p+k)^2m^2+iϵ]}},`$
where

$`N_2(q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{\mu \nu }q^2+2q_\mu q_\nu )\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma ^0(\overline{)}p+\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}k+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^0\gamma ^5`$ (26)
$`\times (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}(\overline{)}p+m)(1+\overline{)}a\gamma ^5)],`$
$`N_3(q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{\mu \nu }q^2+2q_\mu q_\nu )\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^0(\overline{)}p+\overline{)}k+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^\nu `$ (27)
$`\times (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^0\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}(\overline{)}p+m)(1+\overline{)}a\gamma ^5)].`$
Finally, for Fig. 2d, one has

$$R_4=\frac{Z\alpha ^2}{a_0}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{d^4q}{\pi ^2i}\frac{N_4(q,k)}{[q^2+iϵ]^2[(p+k)^2m^2+iϵ]^2[(p+k+q)^2m^2+iϵ]}$$
(28)
$`N_4(q,k)`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{\mu \nu }q^2+2q_\mu q_\nu )\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma ^0(\overline{)}p+\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q+m)\gamma ^\nu (\overline{)}p+\overline{)}k+m)\gamma ^0`$ (29)
$`\times \gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}(\overline{)}p+m)(1+\overline{)}a\gamma ^5)],`$
where $`k=(0,\stackrel{}{k})`$. Each contribution from Figs. 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d is written as

$$\frac{Z\alpha ^2}{a_0}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{F_i(k^2)}{k^2}.$$
(30)
The calculations are considerably simplified if one determines only the imaginary part of the functions $`F_i(k^2)`$. These are analytic functions with a branch cut for $`k^2>0`$. The real part of $`F_i(k^2)`$ is then obtained by means of Cauchy’s theorem,

$$F(k^2)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑M^2\frac{F(M^2+i0)F(M^2i0)}{M^2k^2}=\frac{1}{\pi }𝑑M^2\frac{\mathrm{}[F(M^2)]}{M^2k^2},$$
(31)
where $`k^2<0`$. Substituting this expression into Eq. (30) and integrating over $`k`$ yields

$$R_i=\frac{Z\alpha ^2}{2\pi ^2a_0}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M\mathrm{}[F_i(M^2)].$$
(32)
In order to calculate $`\mathrm{}[F_i]`$, a procedure in Mathematica is written which facilitates the evaluation of the trace in Eq. (24) and the the integrals in Eq. (32). Each contribution is doubled due to the permutation of photon and boson lines. Setting $`m=1`$ and picking the terms linear in $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mathrm{}[F_i(M^2)]=2a_0\pi \{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3M^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3(1+M^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+M^2}}+2({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3M^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{6}})`$
$`\times [\mathrm{arctan}(M)\mathrm{arccos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{M}}\right)\theta (M2)]2(1{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3M^2}})\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{M^2}}}\theta (M2)\},`$ (33)
where $`\theta `$ is the step function with $`\theta (x)=0`$ for $`x<0`$ and $`\theta (x)=1`$ for $`x>0`$. The above expression can be analytically integrated. Hence we have

$$R(Z\alpha )=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}R_i=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }+\frac{Z\alpha ^2}{2\pi ^2a_0}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{}[F_i]=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left(\frac{7}{12}+2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}2\right)Z\alpha ^2,$$
(34)
in agreement with Ref. Milstein . We now turn to the numerical calculation.

## V Numerical approach

In order to make contact with the notation used in Ref. BCS , we note that the two terms $`Q_{SL}`$ and $`Q_{SR}`$ in Eqs. (13) and (14) are associated with what are called “side-left” (SL) and “side-right” (SR) diagrams in that work, which notation we will follow in this section. In addition, the SL and SR diagrams have contributions called “derivative terms”. We will refer in this section to the Gell-Mann Low formalism used in Ref. BCS  in a rederivation of Eqs. (13) and (14): the adiabatic damping factor $`ϵ`$ used in that formalism can be distinguished from the factor used in dimensional regularization, $`n=4ϵ`$, by context. In the numerical evaluation, each diagram breaks into several pieces, which we define as

$$Q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}Q_{Vi}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}Q_{SLi}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}Q_{SRi}.$$
(35)
We now treat the vertex and side diagrams in turn.

### V.1 Vertex diagram

The vertex diagram $`Q_V`$, shown in Fig. 1b, was given in Eq. (12). The ultraviolet divergent part of the diagram can be isolated by replacing $`S_F`$ with $`S_0`$, where $`S_0`$ is a free propagator. If this replacement is made, we get the contribution $`Q_{V1}`$ which is most conveniently evaluated in momentum space

$$Q_{V1}=4\pi i\alpha \frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+i\delta }\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{p}_2)\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{\overline{)}p_2\overline{)}km}V(q)\frac{1}{\overline{)}p_1\overline{)}km}\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{p}_1).$$
(36)
After Feynman parameterization the $`d^nk`$ integration can be carried out with the result

$`Q_{V1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C}{ϵ}}1\right)Q_0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}\rho 𝑑\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{p}_2)V(q)\psi _v(\stackrel{}{p}_1)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_V}{m^2}}`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}\rho 𝑑\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`\times \left[\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{p}_2)\gamma _\mu (\overline{)}p_2\overline{)}Q+m)V(q)(\overline{)}p_1\overline{)}Q+m)\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{p}_1)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_V}}.`$
Here

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi )^{ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ/2),`$
$`Q_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\rho xp_{1}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\rho (1x)p_{2}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ $`=`$ $`\rho x(m^2p_1^2)+\rho (1x)(m^2p_2^2)+Q^2,`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_1|,`$
and the Fourier transform of the weak Hamiltonian in the case of a uniform charge distribution is

$$V(q)=\frac{3}{8\pi ^3(qR_0)^3}\left[\mathrm{sin}(qR_0)qR_0\mathrm{cos}(qR_0)\right]\gamma _0\gamma _5.$$
(38)
The first two terms in the right-hand-side of Eq. (37) are divergent and will be held for later cancellation with the “derivative terms” from the SL and SR calculation. The remaining finite parts of $`Q_{V1}`$ are tabulated in the second column of Table 2.

The difference of $`Q_V`$ and $`Q_{V1}`$ is ultraviolet finite, and is evaluated in coordinate space. The $`k_0`$ integral is treated by carrying out a Wick rotation, $`k_0i\omega `$, which leads to

$`Q_{V2}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi \alpha \mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3xd^3yd^3z_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{z})}}{\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}`$ (39)
$`\times [\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu S_F(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},ϵ_wi\omega )\gamma _0\gamma _5\rho _N(\stackrel{}{y})S_F(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_vi\omega )\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{z})`$
$`\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu S_0(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},ϵ_wi\omega )\gamma _0\gamma _5\rho _N(\stackrel{}{y})S_0(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_vi\omega )\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{z})].`$
A singularity associated with the parts of the bound propagators which include $`w`$ or $`v`$ is regularized by evaluating the expression with $`ϵ_{w,v}ϵ_{w,v}(1\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in the electron propagators. The result behaves as ln$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. While it is possible to explicitly cancel this dependence with similar terms from the side diagrams, we choose here to simply work with a specific, small value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=10^5`$. We note that different choices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will lead to slightly different results for $`Q_{V2}`$, but when combined with the side diagrams discussed below, the sums are essentially the same as long as the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are reasonably small. Results for $`Q_{V2}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=10^5`$ are given in the third column of Table 2.

The Wick rotation mentioned above passes bound state poles which must be accounted for. They are treated by rewriting $`Q_V`$ by treating the propagators as a spectral representation, carrying out the $`d^3k`$ integration analytically, and defining

$$g_{ijkl}(E)\alpha d^3xd^3y\frac{e^{i\sqrt{E^2+i\delta }|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}\overline{\psi }_i(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu \psi _k(\stackrel{}{x})\overline{\psi }_j(\stackrel{}{y})\gamma ^\mu \psi _l(\stackrel{}{y}),$$
(40)
which allows us to write

$$Q_V=i\frac{dk_0}{2\pi }\underset{mn}{}\frac{g_{wnmv}(k_0)Q_{mn}}{[ϵ_w(1\mathrm{\Delta })k_0ϵ_m(1i\delta )][ϵ_v(1\mathrm{\Delta })k_0ϵ_n(1i\delta )]}.$$
(41)
The choice we have made in regularizing leads to only the ground state $`1s_{1/2}`$, denoted as $`a`$, being encircled when $`k_0i\omega `$, so

$$Q_{V3}=\underset{an}{}\frac{g_{wnav}(ϵ_wϵ_a)Q_{an}}{ϵ_aϵ_n}+\underset{ma}{}\frac{g_{wamv}(ϵ_vϵ_a)Q_{ma}}{ϵ_aϵ_m}.$$
(42)
The sum over $`a`$ ranges only over the two magnetic quantum numbers of the state. This contribution is tabulated in the fourth column of Table 2. The part of the summation in which the denominator would vanish corresponds to a double pole, but does not contribute because $`Q_{aa}`$ vanishes. However, it should be noted that double poles will in general contribute, and in fact would be present in the present calculation were we to use a negative value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which would introduce additional pole terms from the $`2s_{1/2}`$ and $`2p_{1/2}`$ states.

### V.2 Side diagrams

It is convenient for the discussion of the side diagrams to introduce the matrix element of the self-energy operator between two arbitrary states $`m`$ and $`n`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}(E)=ie^2d^3xd^3y\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})}}{k^2+i\delta }\overline{\psi }_m(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu S_F(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};Ek_0)\gamma ^\mu \psi _n(\stackrel{}{y}).$$
(43)
A self-mass counterterm is understood to be included in the above. The self-energy of a valence state is then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{vv}(ϵ_v)`$, and can be evaluated as described in Ref. CJS .

Using a spectral decomposition of the intermediate propagator, the $`S`$-matrix for SL is

$$Q_{SL}=i\lambda ^3\underset{m}{}\frac{dE_1}{2\pi }\frac{dE_2}{2\pi }\frac{Q_{wm}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mv}(E_2)}{E_1ϵ_m(1i\delta )}\mathrm{\Delta }(E_1ϵ_w)\mathrm{\Delta }(E_1E_2k_0)\mathrm{\Delta }(E_2+k_0ϵ_v),$$
(44)
and for SR

$$Q_{SR}=i\lambda ^3\underset{m}{}\frac{dE_1}{2\pi }\frac{dE_2}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{wm}(E_1)Q_{mv}}{E_2ϵ_m(1i\delta )}\mathrm{\Delta }(E_2ϵ_v)\mathrm{\Delta }(E_1E_2+k_0)\mathrm{\Delta }(E_1+k_0ϵ_w),$$
(45)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(E)=\frac{2ϵ}{E^2+ϵ^2}.$$
(46)
Here $`\lambda `$ is a factor associated with the Gell-Mann-Low formalism GML  that is to be differentiated and set to unity: in addition, a factor $`iϵ/2`$ must be multiplied into the $`S`$-matrix to obtain the off-diagonal energy. If the restriction is made that $`mw,v`$, it is straightforward to show that two “perturbed orbital” (PO) contributions to the matrix element result which are given by

$$Q_{SL1}=\underset{mv}{}\frac{Q_{wm}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mv}(ϵ_v)}{ϵ_wϵ_m}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{v}v}(ϵ_v)$$
(47)
and

$$Q_{SR1}=\underset{mw}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{wm}(ϵ_w)Q_{mv}}{ϵ_vϵ_m}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{w\stackrel{~}{w}}(ϵ_w).$$
(48)
This is equivalent to the forms given for $`Q_{SL}`$ and $`Q_{SR}`$ in Eqs. (13) and (14). We note that it is not necessary to explicitly make the restrictions $`mw`$ in $`Q_{SL1}`$ and $`mv`$ in $`Q_{SR1}`$ because $`Q_{ww}=Q_{vv}=0`$. The PO terminology arises from the fact that the $`m`$ summation can be carried out before evaluating the self-energy, and one then needs only to do a self-energy calculation with one of the external wavefunctions replaced with a perturbed orbital. The PO terms are tabulated in the fifth and ninth columns of Table 2.

The cases $`m=v`$ and $`m=w`$ are more subtle, as they contribute terms of order $`1/ϵ`$ to the off-diagonal energy. This divergence cancels, but a finite contribution coming from Taylor expanding $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)`$ remains, and contributes $`\frac{1}{2}Q_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_{vv}^{}(ϵ_v)+\frac{1}{2}Q_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ww}^{}(ϵ_w)`$, or more explicitly

$`Q_{SL}^{\mathrm{der}}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\pi \alpha Q_0{\displaystyle d^3yd^3zd^3w\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{z})}}{k^2+i\delta }}`$ (49)
$`\times \overline{\psi }_v(\stackrel{}{y})\gamma _\mu S_F(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{w};ϵ_vk_0)\gamma _0S_F(\stackrel{}{w},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_vk_0)\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{z})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Q_0{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_0}{2\pi }\frac{g_{vmmv}(k_0)}{(ϵ_vk_0ϵ_m)^2}}`$
and

$`Q_{SR}^{\mathrm{der}}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\pi \alpha Q_0{\displaystyle d^3yd^3zd^3w\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{z})}}{k^2+i\delta }}`$ (50)
$`\times \overline{\psi }_w\gamma _\mu S_F(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{w};ϵ_wk_0)\gamma _0S_F(\stackrel{}{w},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_wk_0)\gamma ^\mu \psi _w(\stackrel{}{z})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Q_0{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_0}{2\pi }\frac{g_{wmmw}(k_0)}{(ϵ_wk_0ϵ_m)^2}}.`$
These correspond to the derivative term mentioned in the preceding section. The analysis of this term parallels closely the treatment of the vertex: first the bound propagators are replaced with free propagators, which gives

$$Q_{SL2}=2\pi i\alpha Q_0\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\overline{\psi }_v(\stackrel{}{p})\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{\overline{)}p\overline{)}km}\gamma _0\frac{1}{\overline{)}p\overline{)}km}\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{p})$$
(51)
and

$$Q_{SR2}=2\pi i\alpha Q_0\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{p})\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{\overline{)}p\overline{)}km}\gamma _0\frac{1}{\overline{)}p\overline{)}km}\gamma ^\mu \psi _w(\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(52)
Feynman parameterizing and carrying out the $`d^nk`$ integration gives

$`Q_{SL2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C}{ϵ}}1\right)Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}Q_0{\displaystyle _0^1}\rho 𝑑\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{\psi }_v(\stackrel{}{p})\gamma _0\psi _v(\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_S}{m^2}}`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8\pi }}Q_0{\displaystyle _0^1}\rho 𝑑\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left\{\overline{\psi }_v(\stackrel{}{p})\gamma _\mu [\overline{)}p(1\rho )+m]\gamma _0[\overline{)}p(1\rho )+m]\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{p})\right\}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_S}}.`$
and

$`Q_{SR2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C}{ϵ}}1\right)Q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}Q_0{\displaystyle _0^1}\rho 𝑑\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{p})\gamma _0\psi _w(\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_S}{m^2}}`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8\pi }}Q_0{\displaystyle _0^1}\rho 𝑑\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left\{\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{p})\gamma _\mu [\overline{)}p(1\rho )+m]\gamma _0[\overline{)}p(1\rho )+m]\gamma ^\mu \psi _w(\stackrel{}{p})\right\}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_S}}.`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=\rho ^2p^2+\rho (m^2p^2)`$. The first two terms in the right-hand-side of the above equations for $`Q_{SL2}`$ and $`Q_{SR2}`$ are divergent but cancel with the corresponding terms of $`Q_{V1}`$ in Eq. (37). The remaining, finite terms are presented in the sixth and tenth columns of Table 2.

The difference of the side diagrams evaluated with bound propagators and free propagators is again ultraviolet finite, and after Wick rotation one has

$`Q_{SL3}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi Q_0\alpha \mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3xd^3yd^3z\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{z})}}{\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}`$ (55)
$`\times [\overline{\psi }_v(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu S_F(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},ϵ_vi\omega )\gamma _0S_F(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_vi\omega )\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{z})`$
$`\overline{\psi }_v(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu S_0(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},ϵ_vi\omega )\gamma _0S_0(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_vi\omega )\gamma ^\mu \psi _v(\stackrel{}{z})].`$
and

$`Q_{SR3}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi Q_0\alpha \mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3xd^3yd^3z\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{z})}}{\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}`$ (56)
$`\times [\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu S_F(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},ϵ_wi\omega )\gamma _0S_F(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_wi\omega )\gamma ^\mu \psi _w(\stackrel{}{z})`$
$`\overline{\psi }_w(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma _\mu S_0(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},ϵ_wi\omega )\gamma _0S_0(\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z};ϵ_wi\omega )\gamma ^\mu \psi _w(\stackrel{}{z})].`$
The same regularization of the valence energy, $`ϵ_vϵ_v(1\mathrm{\Delta })`$ used in the vertex is required, and again we simply use $`\mathrm{\Delta }=10^5`$ and present the results in the seventh and eleventh columns of Table 2.

Finally, the Wick rotation passes a double pole when $`m=a`$, with $`a`$ being the $`1s_{1/2}`$ ground state, leading to the derivative terms

$$Q_{SL4}=\frac{1}{2}Q_0\underset{a}{}g_{vaav}^{}(ϵ_vϵ_a)$$
(57)
and

$$Q_{SR4}=\frac{1}{2}Q_0\underset{a}{}g_{waaw}^{}(ϵ_wϵ_a)$$
(58)
which are tabulated in the eighth and twelfth column of Table 2. This completes the calculation and the sums of vertex and side diagram contributions give the values of the exact evaluation of the function $`R(Z\alpha )`$ which are tabulated in the last column of Table 2.

## VI discussion

A number of numerical issues arise in the calculation that we note here. In some parts the use of a uniform distribution, with its step function behavior, caused loss of accuracy. In those cases a fermi distribution was used: while this leads to small changes in $`Q_0`$, the effect on $`R(Z\alpha )`$ is negligible. More serious is the difficulty of controlling numerical instabilities at low $`Z`$, which led to our choosing the lowest $`Z`$ to be 10. A graph of the numerical value of $`R(Z\alpha )`$, along with results from the two leading terms given in Eq. 3, is shown in Fig. 3. The accuracy of the calculation at low $`Z`$ is sufficient to allow a fit that determines

$$R(Z\alpha )_{\mathrm{fit}}=\frac{1}{2}0.045(2)Z.$$
(59)
which is in agreement with the numerical value of Eq. (3)

$$R(Z\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}0.045154Z.$$
(60)
This agreement provides a check on the rather complex numerical calculation. The advantage of the numerical approach is of course the fact that it does not assume $`Z\alpha `$ to be a small parameter, and thus can be used for high $`Z`$. In the particularly interesting case of $`Z=55`$, we see that the perturbative formula happens to be -2.983, as compared with the exact result -4.007.

However, at this point we make no claims about the applicability of the present calculation to the case of PNC transitions in neutral cesium. The actual process studied in the experiment that measures PNC Wieman  involves a double perturbation, where not only the weak Hamiltonian but also an external laser photon field act to either first transform the $`6s_{1/2}`$ electron into a state with the opposite parity, followed by an allowed dipole transition to a $`7s_{1/2}`$ electron, or vice-versa. To extend our calculation to the actual experiment requires the following steps.

The first step is replacing the Coulomb wave functions used here with realistic wave functions for neutral cesium. The technology to carry out radiative corrections in neutral atoms has only recently been put into place. It is now possible, using a local potential that incorporates screening, to carry out accurate self-energy Pyykko ; CS  and radiative correction to hfs NewCS  calculations. The second step is to incorporate the laser photon. This is a more complicated task, since the set of diagrams shown in Fig. 4 must be evaluated. We note that while Fig. 4a corresponds to the vertex correction considered here, Fig. 4c corresponds to a radiative correction to the electromagnetic vertex, and Fig. 4e to a new radiative correction specific to the experiment. We expect that the new contributions will affect $`R(Z\alpha )`$ in order $`(Z\alpha )^2`$, but until they are explicitly evaluated, their importance for cesium PNC is unknown.

The principal results of this paper are then as follows. Firstly, an independent scattering calculation of the leading binding correction in the function $`R(Z\alpha )`$ has been presented, which confirms the calculation of Ref. Milstein . Secondly, it has been shown that numerical methods that allow the evaluation of $`R(Z\alpha )`$ to all orders in $`Z\alpha `$ for the case of gauge-invariant $`2s_{1/2}2p_{1/2}`$ transitions in hydrogenlike ions can be applied. The behavior of the function shows that large binding corrections are present. If these corrections behave the same in the realistic cesium case, and the extra corrections of order $`(Z\alpha )^2`$ mentioned above are small, the apparent $`2\sigma `$ discrepancy noted in Ref. vacpol  is reduced, but before a complete calculation is completed the theoretical status of PNC in cesium should be regarded as unresolved.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of J.S. was supported in part by NSF Grant No. PHY-0097641. The work of K.P and A.V was supported by EU Grant No. HPRI-CT-2001-50034. The work of K.T.C. was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.


format: text

text:
# Non Fermi Liquid behavior in the under-screened Kondo model

## Abstract

Using the Schwinger boson spin representation, we reveal a new aspect to the physics of a partially screened magnetic moment in a metal, as described by the spin $`S`$ Kondo model. We show that the residual ferromagnetic interaction between a partially screened spin and the electron sea destabilizes the Landau Fermi liquid, forming a singular Fermi liquid with a $`1/(T\mathrm{ln}^4(T_K/T))`$ divergence in the low temperature specific heat coefficient $`C_V/T`$. A magnetic field $`B`$ tunes this system back into Landau Fermi liquid with a Fermi temperature proportional to $`B\mathrm{ln}^2(T_K/B)`$. We discuss a possible link with field-tuned quantum criticality in heavy electron materials.

Heavy electron materials are the focus of renewed attention, because of the opportunitystewartrmp ; varma ; qcp  they present to understand the physics of matter near a quantum critical point. One of the unexplained properties of these materials, is that the characteristic temperature scale of heavy electron Fermi liquid is driven to zero at quantum critical pointhvl ; grosche ; devisser ; knebel ; gegenwart . When either the paramagnet or antiferromagnetic heavy electron phase is warmed above this temperature scale, it enters a “non-Fermi liquid” phase. These results suggest that insight into the non-Fermi liquid behavior of heavy electron systems might be obtained by studying the break-up of the antiferromagnetic state.

Traditionally, ordered moment antiferromagnetism is described using a bosonic representation of the ordered moments. In this paper we examine the under-screened Kondo impurity model (UKM) and we demonstrate that the essential physics of the under-screened Kondo effect is captured by a Schwinger boson representation of the local moments. In the course of our study we obtained an unexpected new insight. The UKM describes the screening of a local moment from spin $`S`$ to spin $`S^{}=S\frac{1}{2}`$mattis . At low temperatures, this residual moment ultimately decouples from the surrounding Fermi sea. The UKM has been studied using the strong coupling expansionnoz , numerical renormalization groupCragg  and diagonalized using the Bethe Ansatztsvelik ; natan , but the possibility of a break-down of Landau Fermi liquid behavior was not addressed. In this paper, we show that a field-polarized under-screened moment forms a Fermi liquid with a the Fermi temperature that is proportional to the magnetic field, going to zero when the field is removed. At zero field, the residual coupling of the electron fluid to the degenerate states of the under-screened moment violates the phase space restrictions required for formation of a Landau Fermi liquid, leading to a strongly divergent specific heat coefficient (Fig. 1.)

$$\frac{C_V}{T}\frac{1}{T\mathrm{ln}^4(T_K/T)}.$$
(1)
The appearance of a field-tuned Fermi temperature is strikingly reminiscent of the heavy electron quantum critical points.grosche ; gegenwart ; schroeder ; gegenwartnew

The UKM is model is written

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\alpha }{}}ϵ_kc_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }+J\stackrel{}{S}\psi _\alpha ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\psi _\beta .`$ (2)
where $`S`$ denotes a spin $`S>\frac{1}{2}`$, $`c_{k\alpha }^{}`$ creates a conduction electron with wave vector $`k`$, spin component $`\alpha `$, $`\psi _\alpha ^{}=_kc_{k\alpha }^{}`$ creates a conduction electron at the impurity site.

We begin by reformulating the UKM as an SU(N) invariant Coqblin Schrieffer model, which enables us to carry out a large $`N`$ expansion of the physics. We write

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\alpha }{}}ϵ_kc_{k\alpha }^{}c_{k\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}(\psi _\beta ^{}b_\beta )(b_\alpha ^{}\psi _\alpha )MB,`$ (3)
where the spin indices run over $`N`$ independent values $`\alpha ,\beta (1,N)`$, and the constraint $`n_b=2S`$ is imposed to represent spin $`S`$. $`M=g_N[b_{}^{}b_{}\stackrel{~}{S}]`$ is the local moment magnetization, where we denote the first spin component by $`\sigma =1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{S}=\frac{2S}{N}`$. The pre-factor $`g_N=\frac{N}{2(N1)}`$ is chosen so that at maximum polarization, when $`n_{}=2S`$, $`M=S`$. A multi-channel formulation of the above model, has previously been treated within an integral equation formalismparcollet97a .

Next, we cast the partition function as a path integral and factorize the interaction

$$H_I\left[\overline{\varphi }b_\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma +\psi _\sigma ^{}b_\sigma \varphi \right]\frac{N}{J}\overline{\varphi }\varphi .$$
(4)
We shall show how the physics of the under-screened Kondo model is obtained by examining the Gaussian fluctuations of the field $`\varphi `$ about the mean-field theory obtained by taking $`N\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. This mean-field theory describes a free moment, with Free energy

$`F_{LM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{N}{}}}T\mathrm{ln}[1e^{\beta (\lambda \delta _\sigma \stackrel{~}{B})}]2(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}}{N}})S.`$ (5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{B}=g_NB`$. The mean-field constraint $`n_b=2S`$ becomes

$$n_b=n[\lambda \stackrel{~}{B}]+(N1)n[\lambda ]=2S,$$
(6)
where $`n[x]=[e^{\beta x}1]^1`$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function. There are then two types of mean-field solution:

1. “Paramagnet” where $`b_1=0`$ and $`n(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{S}`$.
2. “Polarized” moment where $`b_1=\sqrt{2M}`$ condenses to produce magnetization $`M`$,

The second phase develops at temperatures below $`T=T_c=B/\zeta `$, $`\zeta =\mathrm{ln}[1+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{S}}]`$ (Fig. 1). The mean-field value of $`\lambda `$ in these two phases is given by $`\lambda =\lambda _0=\mathrm{max}(T\zeta ,\stackrel{~}{B})`$.

To examine the fluctuations around the mean-field theory, we integrate out the electrons and bosons, and write the effective action so obtained in terms of the Fourier coefficients $`\varphi _n=\beta ^{1/2}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \varphi (\tau )e^{i\omega _n\tau }`$. To quadratic order, order, the effective action is given by

$`S[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]={\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}\overline{\varphi }_n𝒥_n^1\varphi _n.`$ (7)
Th propagator $`𝒥_n`$ for the $`\varphi `$ field is determined by the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 2(a).

When we compute these Feynman diagrams, we find that $`𝒥_n=N^1𝒥(i\omega _n+\lambda _0)`$, where

$$\rho 𝒥(\omega +i\delta )=\left[\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\omega }{2\pi iT}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_K}{2\pi iT}+i\pi \stackrel{~}{S}\right]^1.$$

Here $`T_K=De^{1/\rho J}`$ is the Kondo temperature, expressed in terms of the band-width $`D`$ and density of states $`\rho `$. This propagator mediates the interaction between the spin bosons and electrons, (Fig. 2 (b)) and describes the frequency dependent Kondo coupling constant. The asymptotic behavior of this function

$$\rho 𝒥(\omega ,T)\frac{1}{Log\left(\frac{\mathrm{max}(\omega ,2\pi T)}{T_K}\right)}$$

describes a coupling constant which is small and antiferromagnetic (positive) at high energies, while small and ferromagnetic (negative) at low energies. The cross-over from antiferromagnetic behavior at high energies, to ferromagnetic behavior at low energies, is a well-known feature of this modelvarma ; noz ; tsvelik ; natan ; Cragg .

By carrying out the Gaussian integral over the fluctuations of the $`\varphi `$ field, we are able to compute the correction to the free energy $`F_{LM}`$ of the free moment due to the Kondo effect,

$`F_i=F_{LM}(T,B)+{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\pi }f(\omega )\alpha \left[\omega +\mathrm{max}(T\zeta ,\stackrel{~}{B})\right]}.`$ (8)
where the phase shift $`\alpha (\omega )=\mathrm{Im}ln\left[𝒥^1(\omega +i\delta )\right]`$. In zero field $`F_{LM}=TS_o`$, where

$`S_0[\stackrel{~}{S}]`$ $`=`$ $`N[(1+\stackrel{~}{S})\mathrm{ln}(1+\stackrel{~}{S})\stackrel{~}{S}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{S}]`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}[2\pi N\stackrel{~}{S}(1+\stackrel{~}{S})]+O(1/N),`$ (10)
is the entropy of a free $`SU(N)`$ spin $`S`$. In the polarized phase,

$`F_{LM}`$ $`=`$ $`(N1)T\mathrm{ln}(1e^{\beta \stackrel{~}{B}})SB.`$ (11)
We now use these results to characterize the nature of the excitation spectrum as a function of field.

In zero field, the second term in (8) can be expanded at low temperatures as a power-series in the small parameter $`g=\rho 𝒥=1/Log(2\pi T/T_K)`$. We find that the leading order contribution to the entropy is given by

$`S_{T=0}`$ $`=`$ $`S_0[\stackrel{~}{S}]\zeta 2\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{S}+1)g(T)^3+O(g^4)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`S_0[\stackrel{~}{S}\frac{1}{N}]+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{S}+1)}{Log^3(\frac{T_K}{2\pi T})}}+O(g^4).`$ (13)
From this result, we see that the entropy at low temperatures is that of a spin $`S^{}=\frac{N}{2}(\stackrel{~}{S}\frac{1}{N})=S\frac{1}{2}`$, quenched by one half unit. The $`g^3`$ term is the leading perturbative correction to the entropy of a Kondo problem, but with the bare antiferromagnetic coupling constant $`\rho J`$ replaced by the running (ferromagnetic) coupling constant $`\rho 𝒥`$.

If we differentiate $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ with respect to temperature, we see that the logarithm in $`\rho 𝒥`$ leads to a divergent low-temperature specific heat coefficient (fig 3)

$$\frac{C_V}{T}=\frac{S}{T}=6\pi ^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}(\stackrel{~}{S}+1)}{T\mathrm{ln}^4\frac{T_K}{2\pi T}},$$

The singular nature of this specific heat coefficient indicates that the fluid of excitations in zero field is not a Landau Fermi liquid. Moreover, we can see that this result is actually a generic consequence of the singular temperature dependence of the coupling constant.

To gain further insight into this non-Fermi liquid behavior, let us examine the effects of a magnetic field. When we differentiate the Free energy (8) to obtain the magnetization, the combination of frequency and magnetic field in the phase shift $`\alpha (\omega +g_NB)`$, enables us to replace the field derivative with with a frequency derivative inside the integral, so that at $`T=0`$,

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{B}}=S{\displaystyle \frac{g_N}{\pi }}\alpha (\stackrel{~}{B})`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`S{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{B}{2T_K}\right]}{\pi \stackrel{~}{S}}}\right)\right)`$ (15)
where we have replaced $`g_N\frac{1}{2}`$ in the large $`N`$ limit. $`M(B)`$ evolves from $`S`$ at high fields, to $`S\frac{1}{2}`$ at low fields (Fig. 4), with a weak ferromagnetic correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }M\stackrel{~}{S}/\mathrm{ln}(T_K/B)`$, at low fields.

Once the local moment becomes polarized, the specific heat becomes linear at low temperatures, and a Fermi liquid is formed. In a field at absolute zero, the bose field is condensed with $`b_{}=\sqrt{2S}`$ so that now

$$H_I\underset{\sigma }{}[\overline{\varphi }b_\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma +\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.]+\sqrt{2S}(\overline{\varphi }\psi _{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)\frac{N}{J}\overline{\varphi }\varphi ,$$

thereby giving rise to a resonant elastic coupling between the $`\varphi `$ field and the conduction electrons, so that the t-matrix $`t_{}(\omega )`$ for the “up” electrons is now (Fig. 2 (c))

$$t_{}(\omega )=\frac{2S}{N}𝒥(\omega +\stackrel{~}{B}).$$
(16)
Now since $`𝒥=|𝒥|e^{i\alpha (\omega )}`$, we can identify $`\delta _{}=\alpha (B)`$ as the elastic scattering phase shift of the “up” electron at the Fermi surface. Furthermore, by linearizing around $`\omega =0`$ at zero temperature, we obtain

$$t_{}(\omega i\delta )=\frac{Z\stackrel{~}{S}}{\omega \xi }$$
(17)
where $`Z=1/(_\omega 𝒥^1(\omega ))|_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{B}}=\stackrel{~}{B}/\rho `$ and

$$\xi =Z𝒥^1(\stackrel{~}{B}i\delta )=\stackrel{~}{B}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_K}{\stackrel{~}{B}}+i\pi \stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{B}.$$
(18)
In other words, the polarized spin generates a resonant scattering pole of strength $`Z=\stackrel{~}{B}/\rho `$, with phase shift $`\delta _{}=\alpha (\stackrel{~}{B})`$ and a width $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi \stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ which defines the characteristic energy scale of the field-tuned Fermi liquid. The density of quasiparticle states at the Fermi energy associated with this resonance is given by

$$N^{}(0)=\frac{1}{\pi }\alpha ^{}(\stackrel{~}{B})=\frac{1}{\pi \stackrel{~}{B}}\frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{S}}{(\mathrm{log}(\frac{T_K}{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{B}}}))^2+(\pi \stackrel{~}{S})^2}.$$
(19)
which diverges as $`(\stackrel{~}{B}\mathrm{log}^2(\frac{T_K}{\stackrel{~}{B}}))^1`$ at low fields, enabling us to read off the field-dependent Fermi temperature

$$T_F^{}N^{}(0)^1=B\mathrm{log}^2(\frac{T_K}{\stackrel{~}{B}})$$
(20)
From this we see that the characteristic energy scale associated with Fermi liquid that forms at finite field, is the field itself. At temperatures $`T\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{\stackrel{~}{}}\stackrel{~}{B}`$, the specific heat capacity will become linear, $`C_V=\gamma (\stackrel{~}{B})T`$, where $`\gamma =\frac{\pi ^2k_B^2}{3}N^{}(0)`$ (Fig. 3). As the field is reduced to zero, the temperature window for Fermi liquid behavior narrows to zero, ultimately vanishing at zero field.

Certain aspects of these results will change at finite $`N`$. One of the most important changes concerns the values of the phase shifts. In the large $`N`$ limit, the asymptotic low field limit of the $`\delta _{}`$ phase shift is $`\pi `$. At finite $`N`$, by relating the change in magnetization to the phase shift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=g_N\frac{\delta _{}}{\pi }=1/2`$ we deduce that the asymptotic low field phase shift for the “up” electrons at finite $`N`$ is $`\delta _{}=\pi \left(1\frac{1}{N}\right)`$. Since the sum of all the phase shifts for elastic spin scattering must equal zero, this implies that $`\delta _{}+(N1)\delta _{}=0`$, or $`\delta _{}=\pi /N`$ ($`\sigma ^{}`$). We see that modulo the $`\pi `$ shift, all the phase shifts become equal in the limit $`B0`$, $`\delta _\sigma \text{mod}(\pi )=\pi /N`$, the same phase shift as found in the the fully screened Kondo modelnoz .

The field-tuned Fermi liquid in the under-screened Kondo model follows from general renormalization group arguments and is expected to extend to all under-screened Kondo models. At fields that are low compared with the Kondo temperature $`T_K`$, the effective ferromagnetic Kondo coupling constant $`g\mathrm{ln}[T_K/\text{max}(\stackrel{~}{B},2\pi T)]^1`$ renormalizes slowly to zero, producing a small correction to the magnetization

$$M(B)=S\frac{1}{2}+g(B)+O(g^2).$$
(21)
Since the Kondo resonance is tied to the chemical potential, the field-tuned Fermi liquid will have zero charge susceptibility, and following Nozières and Blandinnoz , the ratio between the differential magnetic susceptibility $`\chi (B)=M/B`$ and the linear specific heat $`\gamma (B)`$ is fixed $`\frac{\chi (B)}{\gamma (B)}=N/(N1)`$, so that quite generally,

$$\gamma ^{}(B)\chi (B)\frac{1}{B\mathrm{ln}^2(B/T_K)}.$$
(22)
Giamarchi et al. have noted noz2  that similar singular behavior can also occur in the ferromagnetic Kondo model. There is however, an important distinction, for in the underscreened Kondo model, the logarithmic factors above are of order unity, whereas in the ferromagnetic Kondo model, $`T_KDe^{+\frac{1}{J\rho }}>>D`$ is exponentially larger than the bandwidth, suppressing this phenomenon to a small weak-coupling correction.

Our results do not yet give us a precise understanding of the nature of the singular Fermi liquid that forms for temperatures $`T>B`$. Our large $`N`$ treatment suggests that the fermionic resonance associated with the binding of the spin to conduction electron degrees of freedom breaks up at energy scales above $`TB`$, as if the heavy quasiparticle splits up into a “spinon” $`b`$ and a charged spinless “holon” $`\varphi `$ in the non-Fermi liquid phase.

In conclusion, we have shown how the treatment of the under-screened Kondo model using Schwinger bosons enables us to recover the well-known properties of this model, in the course of which, our results reveal a hitherto un-noticed non-Fermi liquid state at zero field. The model provides an elementary example of a field-tuned Fermi liquid with a characteristic scale which grows linearly with the applied magnetic field. Intriguingly, the low temperature upturn in the specific heat and the appearance of $`B`$ as the only scale in the problem are both features observed in quantum critical heavy electron systems.schroeder ; gegenwartnew , leading us to speculate that this model may provide a useful starting point for future understanding of these systems.

We would like to thank J. Custers, P. Gegenwart and F. Steglich for discussions related to this work. We are particular indebted to G. Zarand and N. Andrei for pointing out that the phase shift of the $`S=1`$ under-screened Kondo model is $`\pi /2`$, and to C. M. Varma for drawing our attention to reference noz2 . This research is partly supported by the National Science Foundation grant NSF DMR 9983156 (PC).


text:
# Bo Andersson’s contribution to experimental multiparticle production physics: an incomplete and biased selection11footnote 1Invited talk to the commemoration of Bo Andersson in the XXXII International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics; Alushta (Crimea), September 2002.

## 1 Preamble

It has not been easy to prepare a talk on Bo’s contribution to experimental multiparticle production, since the memories related to work are closely mixed to personal experience. It is even more difficult to start writing these proceedings.

I knew Bo around 1990, immediately after the first runs of LEP. Bo came twice in Udine/Trieste for a visit, guested by INFN. We wrote just one paper together; it was about the difference in strenght of the Bose-Einstein Correlations (BEC) for particles belonging to gluon jets with respect to particles in quark jets. Today this subject would be “à la page”, since the problem has been shown to be related to the search for interconnection effects in W pairs. Our paper was not subitted to a journal, but published as an internal note of my experiment (DELPHI); in that paper, probably for the first time in the literature, a wine place (the osmizza of Monrupino, near Trieste) was acknowledged.

I remember Bo for nice discussions, drinking together, for the original layout of his transparencies, for completely ignoring the time given to his talks, and for being able of disappearing from one place to reappear in a different one (like some saints).

Since summarizing the contribution of Bo to multiparticle dynamics would require a book (and actually he wrote one), I shall make a biased selection, being short on topics belonging to the past and concentrating more on topics from the future. During hist last years, in fact, Bo worked on topics for which the esperimental analysis is far from being completed.

## 2 The Lund model and its impact on experimental HEP

I shall start from a sentence by Feynman on QCD. “We have a theory (…) so why can’t we test it right away to see if it’s right or wrong? Because what we have to do is calculate the consequences of the theory to test it. This time, the difficulty is this first step.” Quarks and gluons, the elements of QCD, are not seen: only hadrons can be measured. How to quantify hadronization? The Lund string fragmentation model was the first answer to this question, and after three decades it is still the reference.

In the first fixed target experiments, the only way of measuring quantities was the direct one. From the 80’s, unfolding techniques became essential for extracting physical quantities from hadronic final states becoming more and more complicated due to the increase in energy: a good modeling of the soft sector is the crucial point for the unfolding.

With the Lund Monte Carlo system, based on the idea of Bo and of the Lund group, the string-inspired MCs became soon a standard “de facto” for experimental physics (several papers contain in the conclusion the sentence “the experimental data are in agreement with the simulation”).

Many physical quantities have been measured by using Lund as a function of the unknown parameter, and then minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$. As a standard “de facto”, Lund parameters were adjusted to the experimental data (a huge computational program has been set up to tune the string parameters: I was supervising a thesis of computer science on this topic, and I heard of some others).

If you are always right, there is little to learn. Bo was thus always very attentive to the indications of shortcomings coming from experiments, especially in the extreme nonperturbative sector. In the following I shall discuss a few topics where I am convinced that the suggestions from Bo can contribute to a better understanding of soft QCD, if followed.

## 3 Miscellaneous topics where Bo’s contribution is alive and kicking

### 3.1 BEC

Models assume in general a hadron source spherically symmetric in space. Also in the most fundamental process, electron-positron annihilation, an ellipsoidal structure fits more naturally the string model. The prediction of Bo was a ratio of approximately 0.5 between the short and the long axis; the data confirmed such an effect. Much has still to be done to implement a realistic simulation of Bose-Einstein interference.

### 3.2 Interconnection effects in W pairs

When LEP2 started, the sector of “soft QCD” was activated mostly by the problem of interconnection in WW events.

The problem can be stated as follows. W bosons are mostly produced in pairs at LEP2, and each W has a probability about 2/3 of decaying into a quark and an antiquark. Since the lifetime of a W, from the Heisenberg principle, is one order of magnitude smaller than the hadronization time, one expects that when both Ws decay hadronically they cannot be treated as independent objects: their decay diagrams are connected by (soft) gluons (Color Reconnection, CR) and the hadrons in the final state are mixed together by “exogamous” BEC.

The problem is interesting per se and in connection with the determination of the W mass: the most accurate determination of this quantity can come from the hadronic WW channel, provided we understand interconnection.

Bo formulated a surprising (at least to me) prediction: interconnection in W pairs could be be very small or zero, since each W hadronizes along a different string and thus they are two separate objects. This interpretation attributed a kind of reality of the string concept. Since I am a partisan of the non-independence of the hadronization in the WW system, we had long discussions on this topic; however, the final answer belongs to data.

As a matter of fact, accourding to the data Bo could be right for CR and for BEC as well: the LEP results are consistent with the hypothesis of no interconnection at all. I cannot understand how Bo could be right; explaining this, however, would be rather his job than mine.

### 3.3 The baryon sector

Bo was suggesting many tests of the Lund string model in the baryon sector. Fragmentation models contain several parameters which can be tuned according to data; a discrimination could be obtained by looking at spin and angular momentum correlations. The know-how on the observables belongs mostly to the discussions between Bo and his colleagues.

### 3.4 Production of prompt photons

The decay of an unstable particle into charged particles can be thought as the sudden creation of rapidly moving charges. Such a variation of the electromagnetic field is accompanied by the emission of final state radiation. Experiments measure an order of magnitude more radiation than predicted. Bo thought that this topic was very hot.

## 4 A key role in the design of future experiments

Last but not least, the Lund Monte Carlo system is one of the keys for the next generation of experiments, from the project of the instruments to the definition of the trigger requirements and to the design of the software and of the analysis tools. Also in the most crucial analyses (hunting the Higgs), modeling the hadronization of very complex systems is the crucial point.

To conclude, I think that without Bo’s ideas soft QCD would be completely different today, and the design of future experiments would be much more problematic. In this sense I think that most of Bo’s contribution to experimental multiparticle dynamics is still to come.