text:
# Euclidean resonance and a new type of nuclear reactions

## I INTRODUCTION

A control of processes of quantum tunneling through potential barriers by external signals is a part of the field called quantum control which is actively developed now, see, for example, Ref.  and references therein. Excitation of molecules, when one should excite only particular chemical bonds , formation of programmable atomic wave packets , a control of electron states in heterostructures , and a control of photocurrent in semiconductors , are typical examples of control by laser pulses. A control of quantum tunneling through potential barriers is also a matter of interest, since tunneling is a part of many processes in nature. The computation of probability for a classically forbidden region has a certain peculiarity from the mathematical stand point: there necessarily arises here the concept of motion in imaginary time or along a complex trajectory . The famous semiclassical approach of Wentzel, Kramers, and Brillouin (WKB)  for tunneling probability can be easily reformulated in terms of classical trajectories in complex time. The method of complex trajectories is also applicable to a nonstationary case . The method has been further developed in papers , where singularities of the trajectories in the complex plane were accounted for an arbitrary potential barrier (see also ). Recent achievements in the semiclassical theory are presented in Refs..

Let us focus on the main aspects of tunneling under nonstationary conditions. When the electric field $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ acts on a tunneling particle of the initial energy $`E`$, it can absorb the quantum $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (with the probability proportional to the small parameter $`^2`$) and tunnel after that in a more transparent part of the barrier with the higher energy $`E+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The pay in the absorption probability may be compensated by the probability gain in tunneling. In this case the system tends to absorb further quanta to increase the total probability of passing the barrier. This mechanism of barrier penetration is called photon-assisted tunneling. If $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not big, the process of tunneling, with the simultaneous multiquanta absorption, can be described in a semiclassical way by the method of classical trajectories in the complex time . When a tunneling particle of the energy $`E`$ is acted by a short-time pulse, the tunneling probability is associated with the particle density carrying away in the outgoing wave packet. The particle energy after escape is $`E+\delta E`$, where the energy gain $`\delta E=N\mathrm{}\omega `$, should be extremized with respect to the number of absorbed quanta $`N`$ and the energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ of each quantum .

According to the perturbation theory, the both probabilities, of absorption and emission of quantum, are small being proportional to $`^2`$. After absorption, $`\delta E`$ is positive which enhances the total probability due to increase of the tunneling rate. After emission, $`\delta E`$ is negative and the particle should tunnel with a smaller energy in a less transparent part of the barrier; in this case there is no gain in the probability due to tunneling as for absorption. At first sight, tunneling in a nonstationary field cannot be assisted by an emission of quanta of this field since one should pay in probability twice. Thus, one can expect the double loss in probability due to the emission of quanta and the reduction of tunneling transparency. This conclusion is correct as soon as the nonstationary field is small and the perturbation theory is applicable.

Under increase of the nonstationary field the process of tunneling with emission of quanta becomes completely different compared to one, predicted on the basis of the perturbation theory . The crucial role here plays the fact, that the non-perturbative wave function is mainly determined by its big phase (real or imaginary). In this case there is no the double loss in probability. The quantum process is not simply reduced to separate emission and tunneling. However, the phase behavior can be interpreted in the way of enhancement of the total probability due to emission processes which competes now with the reduction of the tunneling transparency. The competition between the enhancement of the total probability due to emission and the reduction of it due to tunneling results in the unexpected effect: the total probability (defined as a particle density, carrying away by the outgoing wave packet) becomes not exponentially small for the certain particle energy $`E_R`$ in the well. This energy depends on parameters of the nonstationary field and in a vicinity of $`E_R`$ the probability sharply peaks as a function of energy. This reminds, formally, a resonant behavior and is called Euclidean resonance . The energy $`E_R`$ can be called the resonant energy. In III this phenomenon is deduced from the analysis of the quantum mechanical phases using only simple physical arguments.

As well known, nuclear Coulomb barriers may be very significant in nuclear physics, playing a role of blockade for particle approach or escape . The famous example of such a nuclear process is alpha decay of nuclei which has a small probability since the alpha particle should penetrate through a very non-transparent nuclear Coulomb barrier . As any tunneling process, alpha decay can be influenced by a nonstationary field. The duration of artificially generated pulses (see, for example, ) is too long compared to the nucleus characteristic time of $`10^{21}`$ s which makes impossible their influence on alpha decay. A role of a nonstationary field can be played by a moving charged particle which collides the decaying nucleus. For example, a proton of the energy of $`1`$ Mev sweeps the tunneling region in, approximately, $`10^{21}`$ s. An incident proton, moving towards a tunneling alpha particle, reduces its energy due to the Coulomb interaction between them. Since the energy is lost but not gained during tunneling, Euclidean resonance may be expected. As shown below, this happens. At the certain energy of the incident proton the simultaneous tunneling of alpha particle has not an exponentially small probability, according to Euclidean resonance.

In other words, due to interaction with an incident proton of the certain energy, the alpha particle escapes the nucleus and goes to infinity with no influence of the Coulomb barrier. This stimulation of alpha decay by a proton constitutes the new type of nuclear reaction. Normally, nuclear reactions involve strong interaction at nuclear distances. In this case, only the short range start of the alpha particle from the nucleus is due to strong interaction and the main physics occurs further, at the larger distance where strong forces do not act and only Coulomb effects are involved. This new type of nuclear reactions has a very resonant character with respect to an energy of the incident proton. As shown below, the typical resonance energy of a proton is in the range of $`0.2`$ MeV. One should emphasize, that this resonance results from solely Coulomb effects in contrast, for example, to resonances in nuclear physics due to formation of compound nuclei.

## II PHOTON-ASSISTED TUNNELING

A penetration of a particle through a potential barrier is forbidden in classical mechanics. Only due to quantum effects the probability of passing across a barrier becomes finite and it can be calculated on the basis of WKB approach, which is also called the semiclassical theory. The transition probability through the barrier, shown in Fig. 1, is

$$W\mathrm{exp}\left[A_0(E)\right]$$
(1)
where

$$A_0(E)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\sqrt{2m\left[V(x)E\right]}$$
(2)
is the classical action measured in units of $`\mathrm{}`$. The integration goes under the barrier between two classical turning points where $`V(x)=E`$. One can use the general estimate $`A_0V/\mathrm{}\omega `$, where $`V`$ is the barrier height and $`\omega `$ is the frequency of classical oscillations in the potential well. A semiclassical barrier relates to a big value $`V/\mathrm{}\omega 1`$.

What happens when the static potential barrier $`V(x)`$ is acted by a weak nonstationary electric field $`(t)`$? In this case there are two possibilities for barrier penetration: (i) the conventional tunneling, which is not affected by $`(t)`$, shown by the dashed line in Fig. 2(a), and (ii) an absorption of the quantum $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the field $`(t)`$ and subsequent tunneling with the new energy $`E+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The latter process is called photon-assisted tunneling. The total probability of penetration across the barrier can be schematically written as a sum of two probabilities

$$W\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)+\left(\frac{a_\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)$$
(3)
where $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Fourier component of the field $`(t)`$. The second term in Eq. (3) relates to photon-assisted tunneling and it is a product of probabilities of two quantum mechanical processes: absorption of the quantum $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and tunneling through the reduced barrier $`V\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The length $`a`$ is a typical barrier extension in space. When the frequency is high $`\mathrm{\Omega }>\omega `$, the second term starts to dominate at sufficiently small nonstationary field $`(a_\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{})^2>\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )`$. This is a feature of tunneling processes. Normally a nonstationary field starts to dominate at bigger amplitudes $`(a_\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{})^2>1`$. When the second term in Eq. (3) exceeds the first one, further orders of perturbation theory should be accounted which correspond to the multiple absorption, shown in Fig. 2(b).

Let us specify a shape of a field pulse in the form

$$(t)=\frac{}{1+t^2/\theta ^2}$$
(4)
with the Fourier component $`_\mathrm{\Omega }=\pi \theta \mathrm{exp}(\theta |\mathrm{\Omega }|)`$. In this case, in addition to the steady particle flux from the barrier, an outgoing wave packet is created which carries away the certain particle density. Then the probability $`W`$ of the transition through the process of absorption of $`N`$ quanta and subsequent tunneling with the higher energy $`E+N\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, shown in Fig. 2(b), is

$$W\left(\frac{a_\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{}}\right)^{2N}\mathrm{exp}\left[A_0(E+N\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega })\right]=\left(\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}\theta a\right)^{2N}\mathrm{exp}(A)$$
(5)
where

$$A=\frac{2\theta }{\mathrm{}}\delta E+A_0(E+\delta E)$$
(6)
Here the total energy transfer $`\delta E=N\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is introduced ($`\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$). The maximum transition probability through the barrier is determined by some finite value of $`\delta E`$, which provides a minimum of $`A`$ and is defined by the condition $`A(E+\delta E)/\delta E=0`$. An existence of such a minimum is possible if a grow up of small $`\delta E`$ reduces $`A`$, that is, under the condition $`2\theta <\mathrm{}A_0(E)E`$ of sufficiently short pulses. In other words, sufficiently short and not very small pulses (however, still much smaller than the static barrier field) strongly enhance tunneling by photon assistance.

Eq. (5) omits some details and it is rather an illustration of a tunneling mechanism with quanta absorption. For example, the accurate perturbation theory starts with the linear $``$-term. The exact nonperturbative theory, which is a generalization of the conventional semiclassical approach, results in the same $`A`$. The semiclassical approach is also sensitive to the sign of $``$ since the classical energy transfer is determined by $`(t)x/t`$, where $`x(t)`$ is a classical particle trajectory. The strong photon-assisted tunneling exists only at positive $``$.

## III EUCLIDEAN RESONANCE

Besides the absorption of quanta in Fig. 2, also the emission is possible, shown in Fig. 3. This process is provided by negative frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }<0`$ and the energy transfer is also negative $`\delta E<0`$. In this case Eq. (5) gives $`A=2\theta |\delta E|/\mathrm{}+A_0(E|\delta E|)`$ which does not correspond to any extreme since $`A/|\delta E|>0`$. So, on the basis of perturbation theory, one can conclude that emission processes cannot enhance a barrier penetration at least for the pulse amplitude on the border of applicability of the perturbation theory $`a\mathrm{}/\theta `$. May an emission process enhance a tunneling rate when the signal amplitude is not small $`\mathrm{}/\theta <a`$?

### A Phase connection

At the big pulse amplitude $``$ its contribution to the classical action, generally speaking, is big, compared to Planck’s constant,

$$a\theta \mathrm{}$$
(7)
and the wave function $`\psi \mathrm{exp}(i\chi )`$ is mainly determined by its big phase $`\chi `$, which can be imaginary as well. Another condition of a big phase is a slow varying pulse

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{V}\theta $$
(8)
since a big phase should be built up during a long time. Here $`V`$ is the barrier height and, therefore, $`\mathrm{}/V`$ is some intrinsic time of the problem. One has to note, that within the conditions (7) and (8) the pulse amplitude can be still less compared to the static field of the barrier $`V/a`$.

Suppose $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ to relate to the classical turning points (1) and (2) in Fig. 3. At $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$, when $`(t)=0`$, there is a conventional tunneling through the barrier. For a symmetric in time pulse $`(t)`$ the modulus of the wave function of the outgoing particle $`|\psi (x_2,t)|`$ has an extreme (maximum) value at $`t=0`$ which relates to the maximum amplitude of the outgoing wave packet at $`t>0`$. According to Feynman , an extreme wave function corresponds to a classical trajectory of the particle connecting the points $`\{x_1,0\}`$ and $`\{x_2,0\}`$. But in the present situation there are no classical trajectories under a barrier.

However, one can find a connection between two constants $`\psi (x_1,0)`$ and $`\psi (x_2,0)`$ without an exact solution of Schrödinger equation. The main point of this procedure is the possibility to define the wave function mainly by its big phase (real or imaginary) which is true under the conditions (7) and (8). Then one can consider a particle state at any coordinate as in classical mechanics. Since the moment $`t=0`$ corresponds to the extreme situation of maximum output, one can look for an alternative extreme way to connect phases of $`\psi (x_1,0)`$ and $`\psi (x_2,0)`$. Let us find some formal path from (1) to (2) which relates to an extreme total phase with respect to the energy of the final state (2).

Suppose, that the particle state $`(i)`$ at $`x=x_i`$ is chosen with the same energy $`E|\delta E|`$ as at the point (2) in Fig. 4. The particle from the position $`(i)`$ can tunnel to the position (2) and the acquired phase is imaginary

$$\psi (x_2,0)\psi (x_i,0)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}A_0(E|\delta E|)\right]$$
(9)
On the other hand, the particle can absorb $`N=|\delta E|/\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ quanta, as in Fig. 4(a), and go to the state (1) where $`\psi (x_1,0)\psi (x_i,0)\left(_\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^N`$. This also leads to an imaginary acquired phase

$$\psi (x_1,0)\psi (x_i,0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{}}|\delta E|\right)$$
(10)
We use here the expression for $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Analogously, the particle can emit $`N`$ quanta and go from (1) to $`(i)`$, as in Fig. 4(b). This leads to another connection of (1) and $`(i)`$

$$\psi (x_i,0)\psi (x_1,0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{}}|\delta E|\right)$$
(11)
According to Eqs. (9) - (11), the connection between (1) and (2) can be written in the form

$$\psi (x_2,0)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}A_0(E|\delta E|)\right]\left[c_a\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{}}|\delta E|\right)+c_b\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{}}|\delta E|\right)\right]\psi (x_1,0)$$
(12)
where $`c_a`$ and $`c_b`$ are constants. Only the first term in Eq. (12) provides an extreme of the total phase and, therefore, one should put $`c_a=1`$ and $`c_b=0`$. This is an alternative extreme way of phase connection. The relation (12) corresponds to a formal (no direct analogy with the exact solution) path connecting the phases (1) and (2). The extreme (at the moment $`t=0`$) transition probability from (1) to (2) is determined by the found extreme phase difference in (12)

$$W\left(12\right)\left|\frac{\psi (x_2,0)}{\psi (x_1,0)}\right|^2\mathrm{exp}\left[A(|\delta E|)\right]$$
(13)
where

$$A(|\delta E|)=A_0(E|\delta E|)\frac{2\theta }{\mathrm{}}|\delta E|$$
(14)
As also follows from the solution of Schrödinger equation, $`A(|\delta E|)`$ weakly depends on the pulse amplitude $``$ under the conditions (7) and (8). The optimum energy transfer $`|\delta E_0|`$ should be determined from the extreme condition $`A(|\delta E|)/|\delta E|=0`$, which reads

$$\frac{2\theta }{\mathrm{}}=\frac{A_0(E|\delta E|)}{E}$$
(15)
and determines the extreme value $`A=A(|\delta E_0|)`$. Again, the physical transition probability at $`t=0`$, $`W\mathrm{exp}(A)`$, can be considered either as an extreme in $`t`$ of the exact solution or as an extreme in $`|\delta E|`$ in the above phase connection procedure.

The phase connection, illustrated in Fig. 4 is applicable for big pulses $`\mathrm{}/\theta <a`$ when the wave function is mainly defined by its big phase (real or imaginary) and the phase difference between (1) and $`(i)`$ is of the opposite sign compared to one between $`(i)`$ and (1). This phase connection, as follows from the solution of Schrödinger equation, is applicable in our case of decay of a metastable state. But it does not mean, that its applicability is automatically valid in other situations with a big phase. For example, a penetration of an incident particle into the potential well is not described by this method.

### B Resonance conditions

An applicability of the phase connection, besides the conditions (7) and (8), is restricted by the inequality

$$\mathrm{exp}(A)1$$
(16)
A pulse amplitude $``$ should be negative, since the classical energy transfer is determined through the classical trajectory $`x(t)`$ as $`(t)x/t`$. $`A`$ is determined by the particle energy $`E`$ in the well and by the pulse duration $`\theta `$. Suppose $`\theta `$ to be fixed and the particle energy $`E`$ to vary. Then the optimum energy transfer $`|\delta E_0(E)|`$, determined by Eq. (15), is a function of $`E`$ and one can define the certain energy $`E_R(\theta )`$ as a solution of the equation

$$A_0\left[E|\delta E_0(E)|\right]\frac{2\theta }{\mathrm{}}|\delta E_0(E)|=0$$
(17)
At the particle energy close to $`E_R`$, $`A2\theta [E_RE]/\mathrm{}`$ and the peak in tunneling probability at $`t=0`$, related to the particle density in the outgoing wave packet, is

$$W\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\theta }{\mathrm{}}\left[E_R(\theta )E\right]\right)$$
(18)
The formal applicability of these relations is $`W1`$, nevertheless, the probability peak can dramatically grow up (upon approaching $`E_R`$), for example, from $`10^{37}`$ to $`10^2`$. The energy $`E_R`$ has the order of magnitude of the barrier height $`V`$ and, hence, $`2\theta (E_RE)/\mathrm{}(\theta V/\mathrm{})(E_RE)/E_R`$. This means, that the tunneling probability at $`t=0`$ has a sharp peak, like a resonance, as a function of the particle energy $`E`$ near $`E_R`$. The effect may be called Euclidean resonance when $`E_R`$ plays a role of the resonant energy. The origin of the word “Euclidean” is explained below.

Euclidean resonance also can be treated in another way. Suppose the energy level in the well to be fixed. Then one can adjust the pulse parameter $`\theta `$ to meet the condition $`E_R=E`$ when the barrier becomes almost transparent at $`t=0`$ for the energy $`E`$. Note, that for other particle energies the barrier remains low-transparent.

In contrast to photon-assisted tunneling, which has a connection with the perturbation theory (see Fig. 2), the phenomenon of Euclidean resonance is completely non-perturbative. One can construct some analogy of Euclidean resonance by adding the narrow potential well $`v(b)\delta (xb)`$ to the potential $`V(x)`$ in Fig. 1. The distance $`b`$ is within the under-barrier region and the positive coefficient $`v(b)`$ is chosen to get the same energy level $`E`$ in the $`\delta `$-well as in the main well (resonance tunneling). Suppose $`b`$ to be close to the main well in Fig. 1 and the peak of the wave function at $`x=b`$ is of the same order as in the main well. Let us move $`b`$ slowly (compared to the time $`\mathrm{}/V`$) away from the main well to get the big peak of the wave function at some point under the barrier. After this $`v(b)`$ is switched off fast and the remaining distribution, which is not exponentially small, goes partly outside the barrier. So, this non-stationary mechanism provides the outgoing wave packet which is not exponentially small. As in Euclidean resonance, two issues are important in this example: (i) the nonstationary potential should be not small and (ii) it should be very precisely chosen to get the condition of resonance tunneling, otherwise, the peak of the wave function inside the barrier would be exponentially small.

## IV AN EXAMPLE OF EUCLIDEAN RESONANCE

Let us consider an electron emission from a metal, left in Fig. 5, to the vacuum due to the applied electric field $`_0+(t)`$ where $`_0`$ is a constant. The energy $`E`$ is supposed not to be above the Fermi level. An electron emission occurs by tunneling through the barrier $`V(x)x(t)`$ where the pulse acts only at $`x>0`$. The static barrier is $`V(x)=Vx_0`$ at $`x>0`$ and $`V(x)=0`$ at $`x<0`$.

The conventional WKB action (2) has the form

$$A_0(E)=\frac{4}{3\mathrm{}}(VE)\tau _{00}(E)$$
(19)
where

$$\tau _{00}(E)=\frac{1}{_0}\sqrt{2m(VE)}$$
(20)
The relation (15) turns to $`\tau _{00}(E|\delta E|)=\theta `$ and the optimum energy transfer is

$$|\delta E_0|=\frac{\theta ^2_0^2}{2m}V+E$$
(21)
Eq. (17) defines the resonance energy

$$E_R(\theta )=V\frac{\theta ^2_0^2}{6m}$$
(22)
One can note, that, under the resonance condition, the input energy $`E_R`$ is connected to the output one $`E_R|\delta E|`$ as $`3(VE_R)=V(E_R|\delta E|)`$.

These formulae relate to the Lorentzian shape of a pulse (4). What happens for the nonstationary field $`(t)=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ or of some other shape? The above arguments, based on general physical principles, are not sufficient to answer this question and a more sophisticated treatment is required. This is considered in V.

## V TRAJECTORIES IN IMAGINARY TIME

According to Feynman , when the phase of a wave function is big, it can be expressed through classical trajectories of the particle. But in our case there are no conventional trajectories since a classical motion is forbidden under a barrier. Suppose a classical particle to move in the region to the right of the classical turning point (2) in Fig. 5 and to reach the point (2) at $`t=0`$. Then, close to the point (2), $`x(t)=x_2+ct^2`$ ($`c>0`$) and there is no a barrier penetration as at all times $`x(t)>x_2`$. Nevertheless, if $`t`$ is formally imaginary, $`t=i\tau `$, the penetration becomes possible since $`x(i\tau )=x_2c\tau ^2`$ is less then $`x_2`$. Therefore, one can use classical trajectories in imaginary time to apply Feynman’s method to tunneling.

### A Newton’s equation and classical action

A classical trajectory has to satisfy Newton’s equation in imaginary time

$$m\frac{^2x}{\tau ^2}\frac{V(x)}{x}=(i\tau )$$
(23)
where $`V(x)`$ is the static barrier in Fig. 5. The classical turning point (2) in Fig. 5 is reached at $`\tau =0`$ with the initial condition

$$\frac{x}{\tau }|_{\tau =0}=0\mathrm{point}(2)$$
(24)
The point (1) is reached at $`t=i\tau _0`$ when

$$x(i\tau _0)=0\mathrm{point}(1)$$
(25)
The “time” $`\tau _0`$ is expressed through the particle energy $`E`$ before the barrier where the nonstationary field does not act

$$E=\frac{m}{2}\left(\frac{x}{\tau }\right)_{\tau _0}^2+V(0)$$
(26)
The conditions (24), (25), and (26) define the solution $`x(i\tau )`$ of Eq. (23). This solution, in turn, defines the extreme (in time) transition probability related to the particle density in the outgoing wave packet

$$W\mathrm{exp}(A)$$
(27)
where $`A`$ is the classical action in units of Planck’s constant

$$A=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_0^{\tau _0}𝑑\tau \left[\frac{m}{2}\left(\frac{x}{\tau }\right)^2+V(x)x(i\tau )E\right]$$
(28)
$`\tau _0`$ can be treated as “time” of motion under a barrier. Eq. (28) holds for any barrier which is zero at $`x<0`$. Without a nonstationary pulse, $`=0`$, $`\tau _0`$ coincides with its static value

$$\tau _{00}=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2}}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{V(x)E}}$$
(29)
and the action (28) turns to $`A_0(E)`$ (2). The integration in Eq. (29) goes between classical turning points where $`V(x)=E`$. According to classical mechanics,

$$2\tau _{00}=\frac{A_0(E)}{E}$$
(30)
### B An example of imaginary trajectories

Let us consider the particular pulse (4). In imaginary time $`(i\tau )=1/(1\tau ^2/\theta ^2)`$ diverges at $`\tau =\theta `$ and this sets $`\tau _0`$ in Eq. (28) close to $`\theta `$. A difference between $`\tau _0`$ and $`\theta `$ is small at small pulse amplitude $`aV`$. For this reason, the “time” interval $`(\tau _0\theta )`$ near $`\tau _0`$, when $`(i\tau )`$ is not small, weakly contributes to the action. During the short “time” $`(\tau _0\theta )`$ the particle energy reduces (because $`<0`$) down to $`(E|\delta E|)`$, so that

$$\tau _{00}(E|\delta E|)\theta $$
(31)
and the particle motion at $`0<\tau <\theta `$ can be considered to be free

$$A=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_0^\theta \left[\frac{m}{2}\left(\frac{x}{\tau }\right)^2+V(x)E\right]$$
(32)
Adding and subtracting the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ in the right-hand side of Eq. (32) and using the equation (31), one can arrive at

$$A=A_0(E|\delta E|)\frac{2\theta }{\mathrm{}}|\delta E|$$
(33)
With account of Eqs. (30) and (31), it is obvious, that Eqs. (14) and (33) give the same result.

### C Why a small pulse may enhance tunneling

It is already been shown in a simple way in II, that the effective nonstationary field in tunneling processes enhances compared to other ones. This enhancement is clearly seen in the method of trajectories in imaginary time where an influence of a pulse becomes substantial under the approximate condition $`(i\tau )_0`$. Here $`_0V/a`$ is the field of a static barrier. In the case of the pulse (4), $`(i\tau )\theta /(\tau \theta )`$ is enhanced compared to $``$ since one can choose $`\tau `$ very close to $`\theta `$. But this enhancement is not unlimited due to the semiclassical condition of slow varying in time $`(\tau \theta )\mathrm{}/V`$. Thus, the condition on the pulse amplitude coincides with (7) or it can be written as

$$\frac{1}{A_0}<\frac{}{_0}$$
(34)
Since $`A_0V\theta /\mathrm{}`$ is big, tunneling can be strongly influenced by a pulse amplitude $``$ which is less then the static field of the barrier. This statement is true for more general forms of non-stationary fields. For example, the monochromatic $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ and the Gaussian $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Omega }^2t^2)`$ pulses become exponentially big in imaginary time and their stimulation of tunneling occurs at small amplitudes $`<_0`$ as well.

### D Euclidean resonance in real time

The metric in relativity $`x^2+y^2+z^2c^2t^2`$ is Euclidean in imaginary time $`t=i\tau `$, since the all coefficient become positive, and the action (28) or (32) is called Euclidean action. Extending this analogy, one can name the present phenomenon Euclidean resonance.

The above approach is valid when $`\mathrm{exp}(A)1`$, but upon reduction of $`A`$ this condition may be violated. When $`\mathrm{exp}(A)`$ becomes no small one should account further contributions $`\mathrm{exp}(2A)`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(3A)`$, etc. This is equivalent to an account of multi-instanton contributions.

For the particular barrier $`V(x)=Vx_0`$ in presence of a non-stationary field one can build up a bridge between trajectories in imaginary time and the solution of Schrödinger equation in real time. One can find this solution in the form $`\psi (x,t)=a(x.t)\mathrm{exp}[iS(x,t)/\mathrm{}]`$, where $`S(x,t)`$ is the classical action and one can obtain any correction in $`\mathrm{}`$ in the pre-exponent $`a(x,t)`$. The result for the imaginary part of the action is shown schematically in Fig. 6. Without a pulse, the solution to the left of the point “exit”, $`\psi =c_1\psi _1+c_2\psi _2`$ consists of the dominant, $`\psi _1\mathrm{exp}(iS_1/\mathrm{})`$, and the sub-dominant, $`\psi _2\mathrm{exp}(iS_2/\mathrm{})`$, solutions. $`\psi _2(x=0)\psi _1(x=0)\mathrm{exp}(A_0)`$ is exponentially small, at the point “exit” $`\psi _1\psi _2\mathrm{exp}(A_0/2)`$, and to the right of “exit” there is only an outgoing wave of the amplitude $`\mathrm{exp}(A_0/2)`$. This is a picture of decay of the metastable state, localized near $`x=0`$, through a static barrier.

When $`(t)`$ is not zero, the third solution, $`\psi _3\mathrm{exp}(iS_3/\mathrm{})`$, appears which is shown by the curve (3) in Fig. 6. The maximum of this solution

$$\psi _3[x_{cl}(t),t]c_3\mathrm{exp}(A/2)$$
(35)
($`A`$ is defined by Eq. (28)) is reached at the classical trajectory $`x_{cl}(t)`$ in real time, when $`x_{cl}(\pm \mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ and $`x_{cl}(0)`$ is the minimum value. We omit not strong effects of quantum smearing of the wave packet. At a fixed moment of time $`t<0`$ one can find $`\psi _3(x,t)`$ for all $`x`$ using the generalized semiclassical approach which nowhere breaks down upon sweeping over all $`x`$. In this case, $`\psi _3`$ is an independent solution and one should put $`c_3=0`$ at $`t<0`$ since there is no incoming wave. Close to the moment $`t=0`$ the solution $`\psi _2`$ and $`\psi _3`$ get a tendency to merge at some point, circled by the dashed curve in Fig. 6. In this region $`^2S/x^2`$, calculated semiclassically, becomes big and the semiclassical approximation breaks down in a vicinity of the circled point. This means, that within the short (non-semiclassical) time interval $`t\mathrm{}/V`$ the solution $`\psi _3`$ is formed. Then, at $`t>0`$, the semiclassical solution recovers at all $`x`$ again, but now $`c_3`$ is not zero, which relates to an outgoing particle. From a semiclassical point of view, there is a jump (since a semiclassical approximation does not resolve a short time) from zero to one of the coefficient at the third solution at the moment $`t=0`$.

Despite of that the above solution is obtained analytically for the barrier $`V(x)=Vx_0`$, the presented scenario of stimulation of tunneling by a nonstationary field holds qualitatively for a general semiclassical barrier. The jump of the coefficient occurs both in photon-assisted tunneling and in Euclidean resonance.

## VI EUCLIDEAN RESONANCE AND NUCLEAR REACTIONS

In VI we apply the developed ideas of stimulation of tunneling to nuclear reactions where tunneling through a Coulomb barrier is a substantial part of the process. The role of nonstationary field is played now by a charged incident particle.

### A Alpha decay of nuclei

According to Gamov , alpha decay of nuclei, is described by tunneling of alpha particle through the Coulomb barrier. The potential energy, as a function of the distance $`R`$ between alpha particle and the nucleus, is shown in Fig. 7, where the Coulomb tail $`\alpha _M/R`$ ($`\alpha _M=2(z_02)e^2`$) sharply drops at the nuclear size $`x_0`$. For the alpha decay

$$^{235}_{92}\mathrm{U}_{90}^{231}\mathrm{Th}+\alpha $$
(36)
$`z_0=92`$, $`E=4.678`$ Mev, and, according to the liquid drop model,

$$x_0=1.2\left[(231)^{1/3}+4^{1/3}\right]\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}0.92\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}$$
(37)
The WKB tunneling rate is

$$W\mathrm{exp}\left[A_M(E,L_M)\right]$$
(38)
where the action in units of Planck’s constant is

$$A_M(E,L_M)=\frac{\sqrt{8M}}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0}^{R_e}𝑑R\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _M}{R}+\frac{L_M^2}{2MR^2}E}$$
(39)
$`M`$ is the mass of alpha particle and the classical exit point $`R_e`$ is determined by zero of the square root. $`L_M\mathrm{}`$ is the angular momentum. Further we consider parameters under the condition

$$\frac{L_M^2}{2Mx_0^2}\frac{\alpha _M}{x_0}E$$
(40)
The action can be written in the form

$$A_M(E,L_M)=\frac{\pi \alpha _M}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{2M}{E}}\left[1\frac{4}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{Ex_0}{\alpha _M}}f(p)\right]$$
(41)
where

$$f(p)=\sqrt{1+p}\frac{\sqrt{p}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+2p+2\sqrt{p(1+p)}\right];p=\frac{L_M^2/2Mx_0^2}{\alpha _M/x_0}$$
(42)
$`p`$ is the ratio of the centrifugal energy and the Coulomb one at the nucleus radius. The imaginary time of motion under the barrier

$$\tau _M(E)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{A_M(E,L_M)}{E}\frac{\pi \alpha _M}{2\mathrm{}E}\sqrt{\frac{M}{2E}}$$
(43)
weakly depends on the angular momentum $`L_M`$ under conditions (40).

According to the semiclassical applicability, the correction to $`A_M`$ due to the second term in Eq. (41) should be much bigger then one, that is

$$\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{32M\alpha _M}}\sqrt{x_0}$$
(44)
This coincides with the conventional WKB condition in Coulomb field. In this problem of alpha decay the condition (44) reads as $`0.011`$. Since the parameter $`p1`$, the angular momentum is big

$$\frac{L_M}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{M\alpha _M}{\mathrm{}^2x_0}}1$$
(45)
As one can see, semiclassical conditions are fulfilled well for alpha decay.

### B An incident proton

What happens to alpha decay when a charged particle (proton, for example) is stopped by the Coulomb field of the nucleus which is ready to emit alpha particle? The classical motion of the proton in the Coulomb field of uranium nucleus is described by the equation

$$t=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2}}𝑑r\left(\epsilon \frac{L_m^2}{2mr^2}\frac{\alpha _m}{r}\right)^{1/2}$$
(46)
where $`m`$ is proton mass, $`\alpha _m=z_0e^2`$, $`L_m`$ is the proton angular momentum, and $`\epsilon `$ is the proton energy. The classical trajectory is shown in Fig. 8, where the shortest distance $`r_e`$ between the proton and the nucleus (the classical turning point) is given by the zero of the square root in Eq. (46). At $`r<r_e`$ the time $`t`$ in Eq. (46) becomes imaginary and, starting at the point $`r_e`$, the proton reaches the nucleus (the dashed line in Fig. 8) at the “moment” $`t=i\tau _m`$. Analogously to Eq. (43), the expression for $`\tau _m`$ is

$$\tau _m(\epsilon )=\frac{\pi \alpha _m}{2\mathrm{}\epsilon }\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\epsilon }}$$
(47)
### C Alpha particle meets proton

When the uranium nucleus emits the alpha particle, the additional interaction energy

$$V_{int}=\frac{\alpha _{int}}{|\stackrel{}{R}(i\tau )\stackrel{}{r}(i\tau )|}$$
(48)
where $`\alpha _{int}=2e^2`$, results in a connection of motions of the alpha particle and the proton. Now there is a cooperative motion of two particles in imaginary time which starts at $`\tau =0`$, with zero radial velocities, and terminates at the nucleus at the certain under-barrier time $`\tau _0`$. The total energy $`(E+\epsilon )`$ of two particles conserves. $`\epsilon `$ is the energy of the incident proton and $`E`$ is the energy of the alpha particle close to the nucleus at $`\tau =\tau _0`$. The interaction energy is always small excepting a narrow vicinity of the moment $`\tau =\tau _0`$ when two particles are close to the nucleus where $`|\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r}|x_0`$. In the small vicinity of $`\tau _0`$ the interaction redistributes energies, so that the alpha particle leaves the interaction region with the energy $`E|\delta E|`$ and the proton energy becomes $`\epsilon +|\delta E|`$. The major part of the interval $`(\tau _0,0)`$, excepting a small vicinity of $`\tau _0`$, the particles move independently with the redistributed energies, reach the point $`\tau =0`$, and go to infinity in real time having the same energies $`E|\delta E|`$ and $`\epsilon +|\delta E|`$. The interaction (48) contributes weakly to the action since it works during a short time.

The both trajectories are shown in Fig. 9, where the exit points are $`R_e=\alpha _M/(E|\delta E|)`$ and $`r_e=\alpha _m(\epsilon +|\delta E|)`$. As $`x_0`$ is small, the both curves are about to merge at $`\tau =\tau _0`$, otherwise the interaction at this region is not effective. This requires the condition

$$\tau _M(E|\delta E|)=\tau _m(\epsilon +|\delta E|)\tau _0$$
(49)
With Eqs. (43) and (47) the condition (49) reads

$$\frac{\epsilon +|\delta E|}{E|\delta E|}=\left(\frac{m\alpha _m^2}{M\alpha _M^2}\right)^{1/3}$$
(50)
### D Cooperative motion of alpha particle and proton

The cooperative motion of the alpha particle and the proton relates to the Euclidean action

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_0^{\tau _0}𝑑\tau \left[\frac{M}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{R}}{\tau }\right)^2+\frac{\alpha _M}{R}+\frac{m}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{\tau }\right)^2+\frac{\alpha _m}{r}+\frac{\alpha _{int}}{|\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r}|}E\epsilon \right]$$
(51)
The classical trajectory satisfies Newton’s equation resulting from a minimization of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ with the initial conditions

$$\frac{R_x}{\tau }|_0=\frac{r_x}{\tau }|_0=0;R_y(0)=r_y(0)=0;MR_x\frac{R_y}{\tau }|_0=L_M;mr_x\frac{r_y}{\tau }|_0=L_m$$
(52)
where $`L_M`$ and $`L_m`$ are the angular momenta of particles which conserve for all $`\tau `$ excepting a close vicinity of $`\tau _0`$. The another condition is

$$R(\tau _0)=r(\tau _0)=x_0$$
(53)
and $`\tau _0`$ relates to the energy of alpha particle

$$E=\left[\frac{M}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{R}}{\tau }\right)^2+\frac{\alpha _M}{R}\right]_{\tau _0}$$
(54)
In Eqs. (51)-(54) the vectors are defined as $`\stackrel{}{R}=\{R_x,iR_y\}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}=\{r_x,ir_y\}`$ since in imaginary time $`y`$-components are imaginary. This can be seen in the proton motion in the Coulomb field of the nucleus (with no alpha particle) under the condition analogous to (40) for proton

$$r_x=\left(r+\frac{L_m^2}{m\alpha _m}\right)\left(1+\frac{2\epsilon L_m^2}{m\alpha _m}\right)^{1/2};r_y=\sqrt{\frac{L_m^2}{2m\epsilon }+\frac{r\alpha _m}{\epsilon }r^2}\left(1+\frac{m\alpha _m}{2\epsilon L_m^2}\right)^{1/2}$$
(55)
The dependence $`r(i\tau )`$ is given by Eq. (46) with $`t=i\tau `$. As follows from Eq. (55), $`r_x^2r_y^2=r^2`$. Fall of the proton to the nucleus means that $`r(i\tau )=0`$, but $`r_x(i\tau )`$ and $`r_x(i\tau )`$ separately are not zero.

In contrast to the big energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$, the interaction (48) results in a very small transfer of angular momentum $`\delta L_m`$ between alpha particle and proton. On the basis of the classical relation

$$\frac{\delta L_m}{\tau }=\frac{\alpha _{int}}{|\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r}|^3}(r_xR_yr_yR_x)$$
(56)
with the estimate $`R_xr_x|\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r}|\alpha _m/\epsilon `$ and Eq. (55) for the $`y`$-component, one can easily deduce, that $`\delta L_m/L_m\alpha _{int}/\alpha m1`$. As shown below, the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ is not small since it is determined by by small $`|\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r}|x_0`$. The proton can change its angular momentum solely by interaction with the nucleus. We consider only spherically symmetric nuclei and the proton angular momentum $`L_m`$ conserves. The angular momentum $`L_M`$ of the alpha particle is determined by the interaction with the nucleus and conserves for all $`\tau `$.

Now it is possible to calculate $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in Eq. (51). A contribution to $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ from the interaction part $`V_{int}`$ is small, almost all “time” $`\tau `$ the alpha particle conserves its energy $`E|\delta E|`$, and the same is true for the proton with the energy $`\epsilon |\delta E|`$. For this reason, one can write $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in Eq. (51) as a sum of two actions of free particles

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=A_M(E|\delta E|,L_M)+A_m(\epsilon +|\delta E|,L_m)$$
(57)
where $`A_m`$ is determined by Eq. (41) with the substitution $`Mm`$. $`|\delta E|`$ obeys Eq. (50), $`L_m`$ is given by the angular momentum of the incident proton, and $`L_M`$ is obtained by the alpha particle from the nucleus. We do not distinguish in $`\alpha _m=z_0e^2`$ between $`z_0`$ and $`(z_02)`$ as the correction is of the same order as the small interaction.

Since the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ is determined by small $`|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}|x_0`$, it strongly depends on angular momenta $`L_M`$ and $`L_m`$ which set a smallest distance between particles. $`L_M`$ and $`L_m`$ should be chosen to get the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ obeyed Eq. (50). We discuss this below.

### E Phase connection

The action $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ relates to the phase connection

$$\psi _2\psi _i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}\right)$$
(58)
of two states, $`(i)`$ and (2), shown in Fig. 10, where (2) is the physical final state of the reaction. The state $`(i)`$ consists of the nucleus $`{}_{90}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{231}`$Th with the alpha particle and proton close to it. (1) is the physical initial state with the incident proton. The phase connection between the states $`(i)`$ and (1) reads

$$\psi _1\psi _i\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}A_m(\epsilon ,L_m)\right]$$
(59)
The dominant contribution to the imaginary phases comes from motion in the Coulomb field. By means of Eqs. (58) and (59) one can obtain the probability $`W`$ of the reaction

$$^{235}_{92}\mathrm{U}+p_{90}^{231}\mathrm{Th}+\alpha +p$$
(60)
in the form

$$W\left|\frac{\psi _2}{\psi _1}\right|^2\mathrm{exp}A$$
(61)
where

$$A=A_M(E|\delta E|,L_M)+A_m(\epsilon +|\delta E|,L_m)A_m(\epsilon ,L_m)$$
(62)
This procedure of phase connection is same as in III.

One can use for the action (62) the approximation (41), which is used in the derivation of Eq. (50). In this approximation $`A`$ does not depend on $`L_m`$ due to the cancellation in the last two terms of Eq. (62). This means, that $`L_m`$ can vary to adjust the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ to one given by Eq. (50) with no impact on $`A`$. In this situation the minimum $`A`$ is reached at $`L_M=0`$. Finally, the action in Eq. (62) takes the form

$$A=\frac{\pi \alpha _M}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{2M}{E|\delta E|}}4\sqrt{\frac{x_0}{\mathrm{}^2/2M\alpha _M}}+\frac{\pi \alpha _m\sqrt{2m}}{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon +|\delta E|}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon }}\right)$$
(63)
where $`|\delta E|`$ satisfies the relation (50).

The physical trajectories of particles in the nuclear reaction (60) are shown in Fig. 11. The probability of the channel $`(a)`$ in Fig. 11 is almost 100$`\%`$ and the probability of the cannel $`(b)`$, which is the reaction (60), is of the order of $`\mathrm{exp}(A)1`$. In Fig. 12 the classical positions of particles are shown at the moment of time when the incident proton reaches its minimum distance to the nucleus.

The angular momentum $`L_m`$ of the proton should be exactly of the value to provide the energy transfer (50). Otherwise, the proton and the alpha particle do not meet at the nucleus position at the coincident “times” $`\tau _M=\tau _m`$, their interaction would be small and the action would be not a result of a cooperative motion of two particles but simply conventional $`A_M(E,L_M)`$.

### F Required angular momentum of the incident proton

Let us calculate the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ at zero angular momentum of the incident proton $`L_m=0`$ and then find the proton energy $`\epsilon `$ which corresponds to this process. Since $`L_m=0`$, only $`x`$-components are involved which are determined by the classical dynamical equations

$$M\frac{R_x}{\tau ^2}=\frac{\alpha _M}{R_x^2}+\frac{\alpha _{int}}{(r_xR_x)^2};m\frac{r_x}{\tau ^2}=\frac{\alpha _m}{r_x^2}\frac{\alpha _{int}}{(r_xR_x)^2}$$
(64)
close to $`\tau _0`$ ($`\tau _0\tau _M\tau _m`$) the solutions have the form

$$\frac{R_x(i\tau )}{R_s}=\frac{r_x(i\tau )}{r_s}=\left(\frac{\tau _m\tau }{\tau _m}\right)^{2/3}$$
(65)
where $`R_s`$ and $`r_s`$ are some constants. The energy $`\delta E`$, gained by the alpha particle,

$$\delta E=\alpha _{int}_0^{\tau _0}\frac{d\tau }{(R_xr_x)^2}\frac{R_x}{\tau }$$
(66)
diverges close to $`\tau _0`$ and should be cut off by the condition $`R_s(1\tau /\tau _m)^{2/3}>x_0`$. This gives

$$|\delta E|=\frac{\alpha _{int}}{x_0}\left(\frac{r_s}{R_s}1\right)^2$$
(67)
The ratio $`R_s/r_s`$, as one can see after a little algebra, satisfies the relation

$$\frac{M\alpha _m}{m\alpha _M}\left(\frac{R_s}{r_s}\right)^3\left[\left(1\frac{R_s}{r_s}\right)^2+\frac{\alpha _{int}}{\alpha _m}\right]=\left(1\frac{R_s}{r_s}\right)^2\frac{\alpha _{int}}{\alpha _M}\left(\frac{R_s}{r_s}\right)^2$$
(68)
Substituting parameters for the reaction (60) $`M/m=4`$, $`\alpha _M/\alpha _m=2`$, and $`\alpha _{int}/\alpha _M=1/90`$, one can obtain $`R_s/r_s0.715`$ and the energy transfer $`|\delta E|1.89`$ MeV. We use the estimate (37) for the nuclear size. With this $`|\delta E|`$ and the alpha particle energy $`E=4.678`$ MeV, the relation (50) gives an unphysical (negative) value of $`\epsilon `$. This means, that an incident proton with zero angular momentum transfers too big energy and the real process requires a finite angular momentum $`L_m`$ in order to effectively increase the minimum distance $`x_0`$ in Eq. (67) to reduce the energy transfer. The minimum proton-nucleus distance increases when the proton centrifugal energy becomes of the order of the Coulomb one at the nucleus radius. This corresponds to the estimate (40) for proton

$$\frac{L_m^2}{2mx_0^2}\frac{\alpha _m}{x_0}$$
(69)
and a typical angular momentum of the incident proton should be $`L_m10\mathrm{}`$.

### G Euclidean resonance

If to insert the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ from Eq. (50) into Eq. (63), one can obtain

$$A=\frac{\pi \alpha _M}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{2M}{E+\epsilon }}\left[1+\left(\frac{m\alpha _m^2}{M\alpha _M^2}\right)^{1/3}\right]^{3/2}\frac{4}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{2Mx_0\alpha _M}\frac{\pi \alpha _m}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\epsilon }}$$
(70)
At $`\epsilon =\epsilon _{max}`$, where

$$\epsilon _{max}=E\left(\frac{m\alpha _m^2}{M\alpha _M^2}\right)^{1/3}1.85\mathrm{MeV}$$
(71)
($`E=4.678`$ MeV) the energy transfer $`|\delta E|=0`$, the parameter $`L_m^2/2mx_0\alpha _m`$ has its maximum value, and the action (70) matches the conventional one (41) resulting in the tunneling probability

$$W\mathrm{exp}\left[A_M(4.678\mathrm{MeV},0)\right]e^{80.75}10^{35}$$
(72)
The result (72) reasonably describes experimental data if to multiply (72) by the nuclear attempt frequency $`10^{21}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

At $`\epsilon <\epsilon _{max}`$ the energy transfer $`|\delta E|`$ becomes finite, $`L_m`$ decreases, and the action (70) reduces compared to $`A_M(E,0)`$. Upon reduction of $`\epsilon `$, the action (70) turns to zero at the certain proton energy $`\epsilon _R`$, which relates to Euclidean resonance. For the reaction (60) $`\epsilon _R=0.25`$ MeV and the accompanied energy transfer is $`|\delta E|=1.15`$ MeV. In other words, when in the reaction (60) the energy of the incident proton is $`\epsilon =0.25`$ MeV, it converts into the proton with the energy $`\epsilon +|\delta E|=1.40`$ MeV and the energy of the emitted alpha particle (instead of $`E=4.678`$ MeV) becomes $`E|\delta E|=3.53`$ MeV.

The cross-section of the reaction (60) is not exponentially small at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _R`$, it has a sharp peak at this proton energy, and is determined by the angular momentum $`L_m`$ which provides the energy transfer $`|\delta E|=1.15`$ MeV. A rough estimate of this angular momentum (69) results in the impact parameter $`h8x_0`$, according to the classical relation $`L_m=h\sqrt{2m\epsilon }`$. A geometrical estimate of the cross-section at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _{max}`$ is reduced to the ring area $`\sigma 2\pi h\delta h`$ of the width $`\delta h`$ near the circle of the radius $`h`$, as shown in Fig. 12. Since $`h`$ is some optimum value, related to an extreme action, $`\delta h`$ can be estimated as $`\delta h/h1/\sqrt{A_M}`$. By means of the relation (72), the geometrical estimate of the cross-section produces 15 nuclear impact areas $`\sigma 15(\pi x_0^2)`$.

At $`\epsilon =\epsilon _{max}`$ the exit point of alpha particle is $`7.3x_0`$ and one of the proton is $`10x_0`$. The incident proton is stopped by the nuclear Coulomb field at $`54x_0`$, as shown in Fig. 11. The interaction of alpha particle with a moving proton is analogous to its interaction with some non-stationary field, which results in Euclidean resonance. As in Fig. 6, the exponentially small part of alpha particle wave function merges at some moment of time the growing part of the wave function. Trajectories in imaginary time is only a convenient language to describe the effect. In real (physical) time alpha particle does not approach the nucleus and interacts with it solely via the Coulomb field. For example, this practically excludes spin interaction between them.

The above calculations hold for spherical nuclei. Alpha emitters may be not spherical, but real parameters of nonsphericality unlikely essentially violate the estimates.

## VII CONCLUSION

When a proton approaches a nucleus, which is an alpha emitter, it creates a nonstationary Coulomb interaction with the tunneling alpha particle. At the certain proton energy there are conditions for Euclidean resonance and the Coulomb barrier becomes transparent for the passage of the alpha particle. Normally, $`{}_{92}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{235}`$U emits alpha particle of the energy $`4.678`$ MeV. When the energy of the incident proton is close to its resonant value $`0.25`$ MeV, it reflects with the energy $`1.40`$ MeV and simultaneously the alpha particle is emitted with the energy $`3.53`$ MeV. Beams of $`0.2`$ MeV-scale protons are “cheap” since they can be technically created in a relatively easy way. For this reason, low energy protons can be used for practical applications, for example, in disactivation of the nuclear waste.

The analytical calculation of Euclidean resonance on the semiclassical basis is given in Ref. . In principal, one can solve numerically the initial Schrödinger equation for decay of a metastable state in presence of nonstationary field using the proper algorithm and accounting the boundary conditions . However, there is a serious problem in such numerical calculations. As one can see from Fig. 6, the branch (3), related to Euclidean resonance, starts to form from the exponentially small branch (2) which is of the order of $`\mathrm{exp}(A_{\mathrm{WKB}})`$ at the well position. In order to get a numerical calculation accounted this effect, one should choose very short steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in time (the number of steps is proportional to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^1`$) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ in coordinate (the number of steps is proportional to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^1)`$. They have to satisfy the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }t(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2<\mathrm{exp}(A_{\mathrm{WKB}})`$, otherwise the effect would be missed. Suppose the numerical computation with $`10^3`$ steps in time and $`10^3`$ steps in coordinate requires one second. One can easily estimate the total computation time as $`\mathrm{exp}(1.5A_{\mathrm{WKB}})\times 10^{10}`$ days. Since for alpha decay $`A_{\mathrm{WKB}}80`$, the total computation time should be $`10^{42}`$ days. For this reason, numerical computation should start not with the initial Schrödinger equation but with some semiclassical approach.

## VIII ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am grateful to V. Gudkov for very valuable discussions. I also appreciate discussions with R. Prozorov, M. Kirchbach, J. Engelfried, J. M. Knight, and M. N. Kunchur.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The primordial light element abundances are predicted accurately and robustly by the theory of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) , describing the first 3 minutes of the hot early universe. This hot big bang model also predicts a relic photon background, produced when nuclei recombined to form neutral atoms some 400,000 years later. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and its anisotropies carry key information about the content of the universe and early structure growth. In particular, both BBN and the CMB are sensitive to the baryon content in the universe and because they are governed by different physics, BBN and the CMB can be used as independent measures of the cosmic baryon density, $`\rho _\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$, or equivalently the baryon-to-photon ratio, $`\eta `$.

The comparison of the baryon density predictions from BBN and the CMB is a fundamental test of big bang cosmology , and its underlying assumptions, which include: a nearly homogeneous, isotropic universe, with gravity described by General Relativity and microphysics described by the Standard Model of particle physics.111Other, somewhat more technical assumptions are that no comoving entropy change occurs between BBN and the CMB, and that the neutrino chemical potentials are small, i.e., that the cosmic lepton number $`n_L/n_\gamma 1`$. In the standard model, we fix the number of neutrino flavors to three, and we allow this number to vary in order to test models beyond the standard model. Furthermore, standard BBN relies on a network of nuclear reactions which are taken from low energy cross section measurements. Any deviation from concordance points to either unknown systematics or the need for new physics. Up till now, there has been tentative agreement between the baryon density predictions from BBN and the CMB, barring the internal tension between BBN derived limits from deuterium and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ observations. With the first data release from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the anisotropies in the CMB have been measured to unprecedented accuracy . This new precision allows for a CMB-based determination of the baryon density which is significantly tighter than current BBN analysis yields. One no longer needs to use BBN as a probe of the baryon density. Instead, the CMB baryon density can be used as an input for BBN, and the light element abundance observations can be used to test particle physics and nuclear astrophysics .

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss the state of affairs of primordial nucleosynthesis before WMAP. We then explain how the post-WMAP CMB compares with BBN in section 3, and go on to constrain astrophysics (section 3.1) and particle physics (section 3.2). We conclude with a discussion of our results and aspirations for the future.

## 2 The Baryon Density from BBN (Pre-WMAP)

The baryon density (or the baryon-to-photon ratio, $`\eta \eta _{10}/10^{10}`$) is the sole parameter in the standard model of BBN. Prior to the recent measurements of the microwave background power spectrum, the best available method for determining the baryon density of Universe was the concordance of the BBN predictions and the observations of the light element abundances of D, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$. A high-confidence upper limit to the baryon density has long been available  from observations of local D/H abundance determinations (giving roughly $`\eta _{10}<9.0`$), but a reliable lower bound to $`\eta `$, much less a precise value, has been more elusive to obtain. Lower bounds to $`\eta `$ have been derived (1) on the basis of D + $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ observations (using arguments based on chemical evolution) , (2) from early reports (now understood to be erroneous) of high D/H in quasar absorption systems, and (3) in likelihood analyses using the combined $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ and D/H observations . The last method gives a 95 % CL range of $`5.1<\eta _{10}<6.7`$ with a most likely value of $`\eta _{10}=5.7`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.021`$.

Observations of each of the light elements D, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ can be used to determine the value of $`\eta `$. Despite great progress theoretically and observationally , $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ is not as yet a strong baryometer  (but see below, §3.1). Each of the light elements is observed in vastly different astrophysical environments: D/H in high-redshift QSO absorption line systems; $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ in extragalactic H II regions; and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ in low metallicity halo stars. Confidence in any such determination however, relies on the concordance of the three light isotopes. One concern regarding the likelihood method is, in fact, the relatively poor agreement between $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ on the one hand and D on the other. The former two taken alone indicate that the most likely value for $`\eta _{10}`$ is 2.4, while D/H alone implies a best value of 6.1. This discrepancy may point to new physics, but could well be due to underestimated systematic errors in the observations. More weight has been given to the D/H determinations because of their excellent agreement with the (pre-WMAP) CMB experiments.

## 3 The Baryon Density from the CMB and Beyond

The power spectrum of CMB temperature anisotropies contains a wealth of information about a host of cosmological parameters, including $`\eta `$ . In the past few years, pioneering balloon and ground-based observations have made the first observations at multipoles $`\mathrm{}>200`$, where the sensitivity to $`\eta `$ lies, and constraints on $`\eta `$ reached near the sensitivity of BBN . Already, these experiments had revealed the first two acoustic peaks in the angular power spectrum, and hints of a third. The improvement offered by WMAP  was thus a quantitative one: with its all-sky coverage, high signal-to-noise, and broad angular coverage, WMAP offers a major advance in our understanding of the CMB and allows the CMB-based inference of the baryon-to-photon ratio to reach a new level of precision.

The CMB-based baryon density must be extracted from the observed angular power spectrum of temperature anisotropies. This process requires several assumptions. In addition to adopting the basic hot big bang framework, outlined above, some more specific assumptions are required. These are: (1) gaussian random fluctuations, (2) flat priors over the adopted range of parameters; (3) an adiabatic primordial power spectrum of density fluctuation described by a single, constant spectral index, or by an index with a constant logarithmic slope versus $`k`$. The baryon density is then determined simultaneously with several other key cosmological parameters which include: the total matter density, the Hubble parameter, spectral index and optical depth. In addition, other data sets can be adopted to further constrain the cosmological parameters (including $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$). The WMAP best fit result is for a varying spectral index, and is  $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.0224\pm 0.0009`$, or

$$\eta _{10,\mathrm{CMB}}=6.14\pm 0.25$$
(1)
a precision of 4%! This estimate is the best-fit WMAP value, which is sensitive mostly to WMAP alone (primarily the first and second acoustic peaks) but does include CBI  and ACBAR  data on smaller angular scales, and Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest data (and 2dF redshift survey data ) on large angular scales.

The various data sets, and assumptions regarding the spectral index, all influence the “best fit” WMAP baryon density. For WMAP data alone, the baryon density is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.024\pm 0.001`$ for a constant spectral index in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ CDM cosmology; this value is about $`1.6\sigma `$ above the best fit. The CBI and ACBAR data serve to decrease $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$ by about $`0.001`$ units, and the Lyman $`\alpha `$ data make a smaller shift, but in opposite directions depending on the constant or running nature of the spectral index. For the rest of the paper, unless stated otherwise we will adopt the best-fit value. Clearly, other reasonable assumptions will lead to somewhat different $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$, and moreover the result (or at least the error budget) will certainly change as additional WMAP data becomes available. To illustrate this point, we will use the WMAP-only results at the end of §3.1 to illustrate the impact of other assumptions. Despite these issues, our point in this paper is to illustrate the impact of the current WMAP results on BBN, and to highlight new opportunities and challenges for BBN.

Fig. 1 shows the light element abundance predictions of standard BBN taken from the recent analysis of , as well as the $`\eta `$ range determined by the CMB in eq. (1). This range in $`\eta `$ overlaps with the BBN predicted range (particularly for the range obtained using D/H) indicating consistency between the BBN and CMB determinations of $`\eta `$. These two techniques involve very different physics, at different epochs, and rely on observations with completely different systematics. Thus, these are independent measurements of the cosmic baryon content, and their agreement signals that the standard hot big bang cosmology has passed a crucial test in impressive fashion.

However, we recall that the BBN $`\eta `$ range based on $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ are in poor agreement with D. This internal tension to BBN also guarantees that at least one element must disagree with the CMB. However, now the CMB can act as a “tiebreaker,” strongly suggesting that the D/H measurements are accurate, while both the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundances are systematically small. This is just one example of the new kinds of analysis now made possible by using the high-precision CMB $`\eta `$ as an input to BBN . We now turn to a survey of other such possibilities.

### 3.1 Using BBN and the CMB to Probe Astrophysics

In light of the WMAP determination of $`\eta `$ (eq. 1), we now have a very precise prediction for the primordial abundances of all of the light elements. Our new BBN predictions for each of the light element abundances are shown in Fig. 2 by the dark shaded distributions. When these are compared to the observational abundances (shown as the lighter shaded distributions) the most conservative interpretation of any discrepancy is a systematic effect in observational determination. These differences offer a unique window into the astrophysical processes which are related to the abundance measurement in both primitive and evolved systems. We describe each of these briefly in turn.

The primordial D/H abundance is predicted to be:

$$(\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H})_p=2.75_{0.19}^{+0.24}\times 10^5$$
(2)
a precision of about 8%.222 Note here and throughout that the uncertainties quoted are at the $`1\sigma `$ or 68% central confidence limit, unless otherwise noted. For comparison, the uncertainty in the BBN prediction alone at this $`\eta `$ is about 4%, so that the CMB error in $`\eta `$ dominates, but as this improves the BBN error will become significant unless it is reduced. We note that the predicted value in eq. 2 is slightly higher than the value of D/H = $`2.62_{0.20}^{+0.18}\times 10^5`$ quoted in , this is largely due to our use of the most recent nuclear rates as determined by the NACRE collaboration ; at higher values of eta, this leads to 5–10% more D/H than older rates . As one can see from Fig. 2a, this is in excellent agreement with the average of the 5 best determined quasar absorption system abundances  which give $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=(2.78\pm 0.29)\times 10^5`$. It appears that deuterium in the two systems with multiple-line measurements , with $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=(2.49\pm 0.18)\times 10^5`$, may be systematically low (as are the DLA systems in general ); however, it may be that the error budget is underestimated .

When taken in conjunction with local ISM determinations of D/H, we see that D/H has been destroyed by only a factor of $`<2`$, which further implies that the galactic evolution in the disk of our Galaxy has been rather tame compared with the degree of cosmic evolution as evidenced by the cosmic star formation rate (see, e.g. ). In fact, we can quantify the fraction of local material that has passed through stars: adopting the recent FUSE Local Bubble value of $`(\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{ISM}}=(1.52\pm 0.08)\times 10^5`$ , we see that $`D_{\mathrm{ISM}}/D_p=55_4^{+6}`$% of the Local Bubble material has never passed through a star. The FUSE data strongly suggests that D/H varies outside of the Local Bubble, so that the $`D/D_p`$ ratios measure the unprocessed fraction towards each line of sight sampled.

The $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance is predicted to be:

$${}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}/\mathrm{H}=9.28_{0.54}^{+0.55}\times 10^6$$
(3)
Unfortunately, as has been argued repeatedly, it is very difficult to use local $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance measurements in conjunction with the BBN value. The primary reason is our uncertainty in the stellar and chemical evolution of this isotope over the history of our Galaxy. Nevertheless, some general statements can be made. For the most part, the average $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance seen in Galactic H II regions  is slightly higher than the above primordial value although the uncertainties are large. A few of the systems show abundances at or below this, while most lie above. Thus one may be tempted to conclude that, averaged over initial masses, stars are net producers of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$. On the other hand, if the H II regions with abundances apparently below the primordial level can be confirmed to be $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$-poor, this would underscore the difficulty of using $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ to do cosmology, but would at the same time offer important hints into low-mass stellar evolution as well as the chemical evolution of the Galaxy and its H II regions .

The $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance is predicted to be:

$$Y_p=0.2484_{0.0005}^{+0.0004}$$
(4)
This value is considerably higher than any prior determination of the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance. Indeed it is higher than well over half of the over 70 low metallicity H II region determinations . While it has been recognized that there are important systematic effects which have been underestimated , it was believed (or at least hoped) that not all of the H II regions suffered from these. Among the most probable cause for a serious underestimate of the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance is underlying stellar absorption. Whether or not this effect can account for the serious discrepancy now uncovered remains to be seen. Note that the ‘observed’ distribution shown in Fig. 2c already includes an estimate of the likely systematic uncertainties.

The $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance is predicted to be:

$${}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}=3.82_{0.60}^{+0.73}\times 10^{10}$$
(5)
This value is in clear contradiction with most estimates of the primordial Li abundance. The question of systematic uncertainties is now a serious and pressing issue. A thorough discussion of possible systematic uncertainties was presented in . The result of that analyses was a $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$/H = $`1.23_{0.16}^{+0.34}\times 10^{10}`$ which is a factor of 3 below the WMAP value, and almost a factor of 2 below even when systematics are stretched to maximize the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance. Once again, the most conservative conclusion that one can reach is that the systematic uncertainties have been underestimated. One possible culprit in the case of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ is the assumed set of stellar parameters needed to extract an atmospheric abundance. In particular, the abundance is very sensitive to the adopted surface temperature which itself is derived from other stellar observables. However, even a recent study  with temperatures based on H$`\alpha `$ lines (considered to give systematically high temperatures) yields $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$/H = $`(2.19\pm 0.28)\times 10^{10}`$. Another often discussed possibility is the depletion of atmospheric $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$. This possibility faces the strong constraint that the observed lithium abundances show extremely little dispersion, making it unlikely that stellar processes which depend on the temperature, mass, and rotation velocity of the star all destroy $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ by the same amount. To be sure, uniform depletion factors of order 0.2 dex (a factor of 1.6) have been discussed . It is clear that either (or both) the base-line abundances of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ have been poorly derived or stellar depletion is far more important than previously thought. Of course, it is possible that if systematic errors can be ruled out, a persistent discrepancy in $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ could point to new physics.

We also note that the WMAP determination, eq. (5), has important implications for Galactic cosmic-ray nucleosynthesis (GCRN). A non-negligible component of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ is produced together with $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ by GCRN, predominantly from $`\alpha +\alpha `$ fusion . Since this process is the only known source of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$, and the abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ is determined as the ratio $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$/$`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ in the same metal poor stars, the enhanced primordial $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance also implies more GCRN than previously thought. This in turn has important implications for cosmic rays in the proto-Galaxy.

As noted in §3, the baryon density derived from WMAP depends on the assumptions–choices of priors and non-WMAP data–which enter into the analysis. Among the suite of models presented by WMAP, the variations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$ span a range of approximately $`2\sigma `$. Thus, it is of interest to see the impact of other choices. As noted above, the baryon density we have adopted (eqs. 1) comes from the WMAP “best-fit” model, which includes other data sets which have small but statistically significant effects on the inferred baryon density. We thus use the WMAP-only data results to illustrate the effect of the other data sets on the results.

The WMAP-only baryon density results  for a constant primordial spectral index gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}=0.024\pm 0.001`$, or $`\eta _{10}=6.58\pm 0.27`$. Using these values and BBN theory we find $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=2.47_{0.18}^{+0.22}\times 10^5`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}/\mathrm{H}=8.89_{0.53}^{+0.55}\times 10^6`$, $`Y_p=0.2491_{0.005}^{+0.004}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}=4.39_{0.69}^{+0.83}\times 10^{10}`$. We see that the lower D/H value is still in good agreement with the world average, and actually in better agreement with the two best systems. Both $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ are pushed somewhat further from the observed levels we have adopted, further pointing to systematic errors (or possibly new physics). Thus, while the quantitative differences are significant, the qualitative conclusions of this section remain the same.

### 3.2 Using BBN and the CMB to Probe Particle Physics

With the goal of maintaining concordance, we examine how sharply we can deviate from the standard model. Often the effect of new physics can be parameterized in terms of additional relativistic degrees of freedom, usually expressed in terms of the effective number of neutrino species $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$, with standard BBN having $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}=3`$. Traditionally, D or $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ observations were used to fix the baryon density and the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ mass fraction, was used to fix $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$. These limits are thoroughly described elsewhere . Moreover, as we have noted, the observed $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ appears lower than the WMAP+BBN value. This discrepancy likely is due to systematic errors (but could point to new physics). Until this situation is better understood, caution is in order. Fortunately, in the post-WMAP era, we can now use the CMB-determined baryon density (eq. 1), to remove it as a free parameter from BBN theory and use any or all abundance observations to constrain $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ . In particular, we have computed the likelihood distributions for $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ using $`\eta _{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ from WMAP and different observations of the primordial D abundances; the results appear in Fig. 3.333Note that we have neglected the CMB’s own sensitivity to $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$; since the CMB values for $`\eta `$ and $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ are essentially independent , this does not bias our results, but means that ours is a more conservative limit.

Unlike $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, deuterium does not appear to suffer from large systematics. It is simply limited by the low number statistics due to the difficulty of finding high-redshift systems well-suited for accurate D/H determinations. Given that D predictions from WMAP agree quite well with observations, we can now use D to place an interesting limit on $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$. D is not as sensitive to $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ as $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is, but nonetheless it does have a significant dependence. The relative error in the observed abundance of D/H ranges from 7-10%, depending on what systems are chosen for averaging. If the five most reliable systems are chosen, the peak of the $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ likelihood distribution lies at $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}3.0`$, with a width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}1.0`$ as seen in Fig. 3. However, if we limit our sample to the two D systems that have had multiple absorption features observed, then the peak shifts to $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}2.2`$, with a width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}0.7`$. Given the low number of observations, it is difficult to qualify these results. The differences could be statistical in nature, or could be hinting at some underlying systematic affecting these systems. Adopting the five system D average, D/H$`=(2.78\pm 0.29)\times 10^5`$, we get the following constraints on $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$:

$`\widehat{N}_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=3.02`$ (6)
$`2.10<`$ $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<4.14\text{(68\% CCL)}`$
$`1.26<`$ $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<5.22\text{(95\% CCL)}`$
where CCL is central confidence limit. Using a standard model prior assuming $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}3.0`$ , the corresponding 95% CL upper limits are: $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}<5.19`$ for D/H = 2.78 $`\times 10^5`$; $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}<4.20`$ for D/H = 2.49 $`\times 10^5`$. For comparison, we also quote the corresponding limits based on $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$: $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}<3.40`$ for $`Y_P=0.238`$; $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}<3.64`$ for $`Y_P=0.244`$ also assuming the prior of $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}>3.0`$. Also for comparison, we note that note that the CMB itself also constrains $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ . From the WMAP data alone, $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}<6`$ (95% CL) . Note that it is conceivable that an evolving nonstandard component could lead to different $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ at the BBN and CMB epochs; as the data improve, this could be tested.

The new power of D to probe early universe physics will grow with the increasing precision in $`\eta _{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ and particularly with increasing accuracy in observed D/H. A 3% measurement in D will allow it to become the dominant constraint on $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ .

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Primordial nucleosynthesis has entered a new era. With the precision observations of WMAP, the CMB has become the premier cosmic baryometer. The independent BBN and CMB predictions for $`\eta `$ are in good agreement (particularly when D is used in BBN), indicating that cosmology has passed a fundamental test. Moreover, this agreement allows us to use BBN in a new way, as the CMB removes $`\eta `$ as a free parameter. One can then adopt the standard BBN predictions, and use $`\eta _{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ to infer primordial abundances; by comparing these to light element abundances in different settings, one gains new insight into the astrophysics of stars, H II regions, cosmic rays, and chemical evolution, to name a few examples. Alternately, WMAP transforms BBN into a sharper probe of new physics in the early universe; with $`\eta _{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ fixed, all of the light elements constrain non-standard nucleosynthesis, with $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ being one example.

As BBN assumes a new role, much work remains to be done. To leverage the power of the WMAP precision requires the highest possible precision in light element observations. Further improvements in the primordial D abundance can open the door to D as a powerful probe of early universe physics. Improved $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ observations can offer new insight into stellar and chemical evolution. And perhaps most pressing, the WMAP prediction for primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and particularly $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ are higher than the current observed abundances; it remains to be resolved what systematic effects (or new physics!) has led to this discrepancy.

WMAP also demands improvements in BBN theory. While the basic calculation is sound, accuracy of the WMAP light element predictions (Fig. 2) is or soon will be limited by the errors in BBN theory. These in turn arise from uncertainty in nuclear reaction cross sections . In particular, the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ prediction is completely dominated by the nuclear errors, especially that in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\alpha ,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ reaction. The error in $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ is also due to BBN uncertainties, in this case the $`d(p,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(d,p){}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ reactions dominate the uncertainty. About half of the uncertainty in the CMB + BBN prediction of D is due to BBN errors, where again $`d(p,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ is important, as well as $`p(n,\gamma )d`$ and $`d(d,n){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$. We encourage intensified efforts to obtain high-precision measurements of these reactions, and their uncertainties.

In closing, it is impressive that our now-exquisite understanding of the universe at $`z1000`$ also confirms our understanding of the universe at $`z10^{10}`$. This agreement lends great confidence in the soundness of the hot big bang cosmology, and impels our search deeper into the early universe.

Acknowledgments

We thank Benjamin Wandelt for helpful conversations, and Ken Nollett for useful discussions regarding the differences between our BBN predictions. The work of K.A.O. was partially supported by DOE grant DE–FG02–94ER–40823. The work of B.D.F. and R.H.C. was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant AST-0092939.