text:
# The wave-vector power spectrum of the local tunneling density of states: ripples in a d-wave sea

## I Introduction

A weak scattering potential imposed on the $`CuO_2`$ layer of a cuprate superconductor creates ripples in the local tunneling density of states $`N(x,\omega )`$ due to quasi-particle interference scattering. It was suggested that scanning tunneling measurements of the spatial and frequency structure of $`N(x,\omega )`$ could provide information on the $`k`$ and $`\omega `$ dependence of the gap BFS93 . Recently, the introduction of high-resolution Fourier-transform scanning tunneling microscopy Hof02 ; How02 ; McE02  (FT-STM) has provided a powerful new technique for studying this. In this approach, a BISCO crystal is cleaved exposing a $`BiO_2`$ layer. Then an STM measurement of the local tunneling conductance $`dI(V,x)/dV`$ is taken over a predetermined $`L\times L`$ grid of points that cover a region of order 600Å$`\times `$600Å. Assuming that the tunneling conductance is proportional to the underlying density of states of the $`CuO_2`$ layer MB01 , these measurements give an STM map of the local tunneling density of states $`N(x,\omega )`$ with $`\omega =eV`$. This map is then Fourier transformed,

$$N(q,\omega )=\underset{x_l(L\times L)}{}e^{iqx_l}N(x_l,\omega ),$$
(1)
and the wave-vector power spectrum,

$$P(q,\omega )=\frac{|N(q,\omega )|^2}{L^2},$$
(2)
determined. Typically, the square root of the power spectrum, which is proportional to the magnitude of $`N(q,\omega )`$, is plotted and we will follow that practice as well. Here, we will discuss the structure of $`P(q,\omega )`$ and its relationship to the quasi-particle spectrum and the structure factor of the scattering potential.

For an isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductor with a circular normal state Fermi surface, the ripples in $`N(x,\omega )`$ produced by a weak scattering center form a circular pattern whose amplitude and wave length depend upon the bias voltage $`\omega =eV`$. However, if the gap has $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry, the ripples emanating from a scattering center appear as a characteristic set of rays whose wave length and amplitude vary with their angular direction and the size of the bias voltage $`\omega =eV`$BFS93 ; FB99 . Two examples of this are shown in Fig. 1. It is the STM measurements of these modulations in $`N(x,\omega )`$ that provide information on the wave vector and frequency dependence of the gap. Indeed, in their FT-STM power spectrum study of BISCO, Hoffman et. al Hof02  and McElroy et. al McE02  found frequency-dependent structure in $`P(q,\omega )`$ which they argued were consistent with the Fermi surface dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ as seen from ARPES measurements Din96 . In this work Hof02 ; McE02 , these authors suggested that the FT-STM data could be analyzed in terms of a set of frequency-dependent wave vectors $`𝐪_\alpha (\omega )`$ which connect the tips of the constant energy contours specified by the quasi-particle dispersion relation

$$\omega =\sqrt{ϵ_k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}.$$
(3)
The contours of the solid regions shown in Figs. 1(b) and (d) are the constant quasi-particle energy contours for a cylindrical Fermi surface $`ϵ_k=k^2/2m\mu `$ with a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ for $`\omega =0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`1.1\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, respectively. Also shown in Fig. 1(b) are several of the $`𝐪_\alpha (\omega )`$ wave vectors introduced in Ref. McE02 . The wave vector $`𝐪^{}(\omega )`$ is an additional wave vector that we will discuss. The wave vectors $`𝐪_1(\omega )`$ and $`𝐪_5(\omega )`$, along with their symmetry-related counter parts (not shown), are associated with the structure of the ripples in $`N(x,\omega )`$ seen along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes of Fig. 1(a). Likewise, the wave vectors $`𝐪_3(\omega )`$, $`𝐪^{}(\omega )`$, and $`𝐪_7(\omega )`$ determine the structure of the ripples along the 45 axes of Fig. 1(a). In conjunction with this experimental work, Wang and Lee WL02  recently reported numerical calculations for the case of a single impurity which clearly showed the quasi-particle interference arising from $`𝐪_1(\omega )`$ and $`𝐪_7(\omega )`$. In addition, as $`\omega `$ is varied these calculations showed that a rich, kaleidescope-like, structure appears in the wave vector power spectrum when it is folded back into the first Brillouin zone.

In a similar way, for $`\omega =1.1\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, the wave vectors $`Q_\alpha `$ shown in Fig. 1(d), determine the structure of $`N(x,\omega )`$ seen in Fig.1 (c). Here the ripples along the $`x`$ and $`y`$-axes are associated with $`Q_2`$ and $`Q_3`$ (and their symmetry related counterparts in the $`y`$ direction), while those along the diagonal are associated with $`Q_1`$ (and its counterparts). In practice, when $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, inelastic scatering leads to a damping of the ripples in $`N(x,\omega )`$, making the structure in $`|N(x,\omega )|`$ associated with the $`Q_\alpha `$ wave vectors difficult to detect.

Now, the quasi-particle interference pattern shown in Figs. 1(a) and (c) are for a single impurity. For a particular surface region over which the STM measurements are made, there will be an array of scatterers leading to a complex overlap of ripples. Here we will discuss how the Fourier transformed wave vector power spectrum $`P(q,\omega )`$ allows one to disentangle the quasi-particle interference effects from the static structure factors of the scatterers. In Section II we show that for the case of a weak scattering potential, $`P(q,\omega )`$ factors into one piece which contains information on the nesting properties of the Fermi surface times a piece which is proportional to the static structure factor of the scatterers. We also note that these measurements contain information on the one electron self-energy. Various examples are analyzed to show the type of information that is in principle contained in the FT-STM data. In Section III, the case of a layered 2D superconductor is studied with results for both $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave gaps discussed. Section IV contains our conclusions and Appendices A and B contain more details of the calculations.

## II FT-STM Power Spectrum of a 2D Normal Metallic Layer

To begin, we first consider the case of a normal metallic 2D layer. Suppose it is exposed to a weak potential

$$V=\underset{s}{}d^2x\delta ϵ(x)\psi _s^{}(x)\psi _s(x).$$
(4)
with $`\delta ϵ(x)`$ an energy shift at $`x`$. For a BISCO-like system this local energy change $`\delta ϵ(x)`$ could arise from secondary effects associated with disorder away from the $`CuO_2`$ plane, the regular potential of the $`BiO_2`$ layer or possibly a weak static stripe potential. This interaction creates a ripple in the one-electron Green’s function leading to a modulation in the local tunneling density of states. For the case of a weak potential which we will focus on, a Born approximation is appropriate so that the single particle Green’s function is given by

$$G(x,x^{},\omega )=G_o(xx^{},\omega )+d^2x^{\prime \prime }G_o(xx^{\prime \prime },\omega )\delta ϵ(x^{\prime \prime })G_o(x^{\prime \prime }x^{},\omega ).$$
(5)
Here, $`G_o(x,\omega )`$ is the Green’s function of the unperturbed system. Then the change in the single spin tunneling density of states at position $`x`$ is given by

$$\delta N(x,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }Imd^2x^{\prime \prime }G_o(xx^{\prime \prime },\omega )\delta ϵ(x^{\prime \prime })G_o(x^{\prime \prime }x,\omega )$$
(6)
Taking the spatial Fourier transform of $`\delta N(x,\omega )`$, on the $`L\times L`$ grid of points $`\{𝐱_l\}`$ specified by the STM measurements, one finds for $`q0`$, that

$$N(q,\omega )=\underset{x_l(L\times L)}{}e^{iqx_l}\delta N(x_l,\omega )=\frac{\delta ϵ(q)}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )$$
(7)
with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=d^2xe^{iqx}G_o(x,\omega )G_o(x,\omega )$$
(8)
and

$$\delta ϵ(q)=\frac{d^2x}{a^2}\delta ϵ(x)e^{iqx}.$$
(9)
Here $`a`$ is the lattice spacing of the $`L\times L`$ STM grid and $`q=2\pi (n_x,n_y)/La`$ with $`n_x`$ and $`n_y`$ integers running from $`L/2+1`$ to $`L/2`$. The wave-vector power spectrum of the local tunneling density of states, Eq. (2), is therefore given by

$$P(q,\omega )=\frac{1}{N}\left|\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )\right|^2|\delta ϵ(q)|^2.$$
(10)
Here $`N=L\times L`$ is the number of sites in the sampled region. Thus, in the weak scattering Born approximation, $`P(q,\omega )`$ separates into a piece $`|Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi |^2`$ which describes the quasi-particle interference and a piece $`|\delta ϵ(q)|^2`$ which is the static structure factor, $`S(q)`$, of the scattering potential.

For the random impurity case, one could imagine making STM maps over a large number of different $`L\times L`$ regions. Then by averaging the structure factor over these maps one would obtain

$$\frac{|\delta ϵ(q)|^2}{N}=n_i\delta ϵ^2(q0)$$
(11)
where $`n_i`$ is the area impurity concentration and $`\delta ϵ`$ is a site energy shift. In this case, $`P(q,\omega )`$ would simply be proportional to $`n_i\delta ϵ^2`$ times the quasi-particle interference factor from a single impurity. However, this is not the way the experiments are done. Rather, a single STM map on a finite $`L\times L`$ grid of points covering a specific region is measured. In this case, $`|\delta ϵ(q)|^2`$ versus $`q`$ exhibits fluctuations bluring the image of $`|Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi |`$, although one can still resolve structure in false color 2D $`(q_x,q_y)`$ maps of $`|N(q,\omega )|`$. However, as discussed in Appendix A, by averaging the power spectrum over blocks of width $`(\mathrm{\Delta }q_x,\mathrm{\Delta }q_y)`$ about each $`q`$, the fluctuations can be reduced if the impurities are randomly distributed. Naturally, this reduces the momentum resolution. However, if the change in $`q`$ of the quasi-particle interference response is predominately along a given momentum direction, one can average over a region of $`q`$ values perpendicular to the direction of interest, reducing the fluctuations but maintaining the $`q`$ resolution in the direction of interest. Here we will assume that a suitable average has been done and use the impurity structure factor given by Eq. (11). Appendix A contains a further discussion of the effect of impurity induced fluctuations.

For the case in which the scattering occurs from a regular lattice such as the $`Bi`$ lattice, one has

$$\left|\delta ϵ(q)\right|^2=\delta ϵ^2N^2\delta _{q,G_n}$$
(12)
Here $`𝐆_n`$ is a reciprocal lattice vector of the $`Bi`$ lattice along with the satellite wave vectors associated with the supermodulation of the $`BiO_2`$ layer. One could also have a “random” array of stripe domains with

$$\left|\delta ϵ(q)\right|^2N_i\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/\pi }{(q_xQ_x)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/\pi }{(q_yQ_y)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}+(q_xq_x,q_yq_y)\right\}\delta ϵ^2$$
(13)
Here $`Q_x=2\pi /l_x`$ with $`l_x`$ the stripe spacing, $`2\pi /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the characteristic size of a domain and $`N_i`$ is the average number of domains in an $`L\times L`$ region. Here we have taken only the first $`Q_x`$ harmonic. The form factor associated with the charge distribution of the stripes suppresses the response at higher multiples of $`Q_x`$. We will examine the effect of an array of scattering centers in Section III.

Turning next to the quasi-particle interference response, we begin by looking at $`G_o(x,\omega )`$ for a free 2D electron gas. In this case, for $`\omega >0`$,

$$G_o(x,\omega )=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{e^{ikx}}{\omega ϵ_k+i\delta }=i\pi N(0)H_0^{(1)}\left(k(\omega )r\right),$$
(14)
with $`ϵ_k=k^2/2m\mu `$ and $`mu=k_F^2/2m`$. Here $`N(0)=m/2\pi `$ is the single spin electron density of states for the 2D free electron gas, $`H_0^{(1)}`$ is the zeroth order Hankel function of the first kind, $`r=|x|`$ and

$$k(\omega )=k_F\sqrt{1+\frac{\omega }{\mu }}.$$
(15)
When $`k(\omega )r`$ is large

$$G_0(x,\omega )iN(0)\left(\frac{2\pi }{k(\omega )r}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\left(k(\omega )r\frac{\pi }{4}\right)}.$$
(16)
and the spatial modulation of $`\delta N(x,\omega )`$ which varies as the square of $`G_o(x,\omega )`$ is characterized by a wave vector

$$q(\omega )=2k_F\sqrt{1+\frac{\omega }{\mu }}.$$
(17)
The quasi-particle interference response function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ for the 2D electron gas is calculated in Appendix B. The result of this calculation shows Kivup  that

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{8\pi N^2(0)}{q\sqrt{q^24k^2(\omega )}}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{for}q>2k(\omega )\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{for}q<2k(\omega )\end{array}$$
(18)
Thus, the wave-vector power spectrum for the 2D free electron gas has a cusp at $`q`$ equals $`2k(\omega )`$. $`Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ vanishes for $`q<2k(\omega )`$ and diverges as $`(q2k(\omega ))^{1/2}`$ as $`q`$ approaches $`2k(\omega )`$ from larger values. As noted in the appendix, $`Re\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ has a similar cusp as $`q`$ approaches $`2k(\omega )`$ from below. Basically, there is just a shift of phase of $`\pi /2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ when $`q`$ passes trough $`2k(\omega )`$. If the impurities are dilute, but the scattering from a given impurity is strong, one still has $`P(q,\omega )`$ proportional to the impurity concentration. However, in this case thnkKivelson , because of the phase of the t-matrix one will have singularities on both sides of $`2k(\omega )`$.

The experimental FT-STM data has been reported as the square root of the power spectrum or “the magnitude” $`|N(q,\omega )|`$ of the Fourier transform of the STM measurement of the local conductance map. Here we will follow this convention. For the case of weak Born scattering, the magnitude of $`N(q,\omega )`$ is proportional to $`|Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi |`$. For the 2D electron gas, in Fig. 2, we have plotted $`|N(q,\omega )|`$ normalized to $`\sqrt{n_i}N(0)|\delta ϵ|/\mu `$ versus $`q`$ for various values of $`\omega /\mu `$. Here, with $`q`$ in units of $`2k_F`$ one has

$$\left|\overline{N}(q,\omega )\right|=\frac{|N(q,\omega )|}{\sqrt{n_i}N(0)\left(\frac{|\delta ϵ|}{\mu }\right)}=\frac{1}{2q}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2\left(1+\frac{\omega }{\mu }\right)}}$$
(19)
for $`(1+\omega /\mu )<q/2k_F`$. As shown in Fig. 2, for the weak scattering case $`|\overline{N}(q,\omega )|`$ has a one-sided square root singularity at $`q/2k_F=(1+\omega /\mu )^{1/2}`$. This singularity is cut off and the response peak varies as $`(\mathrm{}k_F)^{1/2}`$ when the quasi-particle mean-free path is taken into account. In this case

$$\left|\overline{N}(q,\omega )\right|=\frac{1}{2\pi q}\underset{1}{\overset{q^21}{}}𝑑ϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\left(\frac{\omega }{\mu }ϵ\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2(1+ϵ)}}$$
(20)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{}k_F)^1`$. Plots of $`|\overline{N}(q,\omega )|`$ versus $`q`$ for $`\omega =0`$ and several different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are shown in Fig. 3.

Similarly, for an anisotropic system with

$$ϵ_k=\frac{k_x^2}{2m_x}+\frac{k_y^2}{2m_y}\mu $$
(21)
one finds that

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q_x,q_y,\omega )=\{\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{2}{\pi \gamma }m_x^2\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+\gamma ^2q_y^2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+\gamma ^2q_y^28m_x(\omega +\mu )}}& \hfill \mathrm{for}q_x^2+\gamma ^2q_y^2>8m_x(\mu +\omega )\\ 0\hfill & & & \hfill \mathrm{for}q_x^2+\gamma ^2q_y^2<8m_x(\mu +\omega )\end{array}$$
(22)
with $`\gamma ^2=m_x/m_y`$. In this case the cusp in the power spectrum follows a locus determined by

$$q_x^2+\gamma ^2q_y^2=8m_x(\mu +\omega )$$
(23)
which reflects the elliptical Fermi surface. In Fig. 4, we have plotted $`|N(q,\omega )|`$ for $`\omega =0`$ and $`\gamma =3`$ normalized to $`\sqrt{n_i}(m_x/2\pi )|\delta ϵ|/\mu `$, which gives

$$\left|\overline{N}(q_x,q_y,\omega )\right|=\frac{1}{2\gamma }\frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+\gamma ^2q_y^2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+\gamma ^2q_y^2\left(1+\frac{\omega }{\mu }\right)}}$$
(24)
with $`q_x`$ and $`q_y`$ measured in units of $`2k_F^x=2(2m_x\mu )^{1/2}`$. Here, we see that $`|\overline{N}(q,0)|`$ vanishes inside the ellipse Eq. (23) and has a square root divergence as $`q`$ approaches the ellipse. There is a reduction $`\gamma =(m_y/m_x)^{1/2}`$ in the strength of the cusp along the $`q_y`$ direction relative to the $`q_x`$ direction that reflects the fact that the joint density of states which enters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ depends on the curvature of the Fermi surface.

Turning now to the case of a tight-binding band, we consider first the simple nearest-neighbor hopping band for a square lattice with a unit lattice spacing

$$ϵ_k=2t\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)\mu .$$
(25)
The Fermi surface is shown in Fig. 5 for $`\mu =t`$, corresponding to a small filling $`n0.31`$ which we have chosen to illustrate what happens when $`Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,w)`$ is folded back into the first Brillouin zone. In the following tight-binding bandstructure calculations, we will assume that $`N(x,\omega )`$ is measured on a grid of points corresponding to the sites of the lattice. In this case,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k}{}G_0(k+q,\omega )G_0(k,\omega )$$
(26)
with

$$G_0(k)=\frac{1}{\omega ϵ_k+i\delta sgn(\omega )}$$
(27)
Here, $`N=L\times L`$ is the number of lattice sites and $`k`$ and $`q`$ are defined in the first Brillouin zone with components running from $`\pi `$ to $`\pi `$. We have set the lattice spacing $`a=1`$. This choice of the grid simplifies the calculations but has the consequence that all results are folded back into the first Brillouin zone. It is this down folding that leads to the kaleidoscopic patterns in the numerical results shown in Ref. WL02 . In the experimental FT-STM measurements Hof02 ; McE02 , a smaller grid spacing was used leading to a $`q`$-space power spectrum which looks more like the extended zone picture for the $`q`$-vectors of interest.

Carrying out the momentum sum in Eq. (26), we find the results for $`|Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi |`$ shown in Fig. 6. Here in Fig. 6(a), $`q`$ varies along the diagonal a-cut shown in Fig. 5 with $`q_x=q_y`$. In this case, $`|\overline{N}(q,\omega )|`$ exhibits a similar cusp to that of the free electron system when $`|q_x|2k_F^{xy}=2\mathrm{cos}^1((\mu +\omega )/4t)`$. This same type of behavior is shown as the dashed curve for the b-cut with $`q_y=0`$ in Fig. 6(b), where we have displaced the numerical results by $`\pm 2\pi `$ corresponding to an extended zone scheme. Here, the cusp occurs for $`|q_x|2k_F^x=2\mathrm{cos}^1((2t+\mu +\omega )/2t)`$ which is greater than $`\pi `$ for the b-cut of Fig. 5. In practice, the numerical data is obtained in the “reduced” $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ zone so that the $`q_y=0`$ b-cut appears as the solid curve shown in Fig. 6(b). As $`\omega `$ is increased, the characteristic $`q`$ values can move across the boundary of the first zone and be mapped back via a reciprocal lattice vector. This can then lead to a situation in which the square root singularity is approached from smaller $`q`$-values with $`|\overline{N}(q,\omega )|`$ vanishing when $`q`$ exceeds a critical value as shown by the solid curve in Fig. 6(b). As noted, it is this folding of the FT-STM power spectrum into the reduced zone that leads to the kaleidoscopic 2D $`(q_x,q_y)`$ patterns for different $`\omega `$ values which have been reported WL02 .

Finally, consider the case of a tight-binding band, like that found for BISCO. Here, one has a next-near-neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ so that

$$ϵ_k=2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\mu .$$
(28)
The Fermi surface for $`t^{}/t=0.3`$ and $`\mu /t=1.0`$ is shown in Fig. 7. Results of a numerical calculation for $`Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi `$ for this case are plotted in Figs. 8(a) and 8(b) for $`q_y=0`$ and $`q_x=q_y`$, respectively. For $`q_y=0`$, the nesting vector 3 is shown in Fig. 7. If we consider the closed Fermi surface around $`(\pi ,\pi )`$, one can see that the two points of this closed Fermi surface that are connected by the wave vector labeled 3, have $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ greater than $`\pi `$. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q/\pi 1.76`$, so that when this is folded back into the first Brillouin zone, the cusp occurs at $`\mathrm{\Delta }q/\pi .24`$. Also, as we saw previously in Fig. 6(a) the cusp rises from smaller values of $`q`$ in the reduced zone although in an extended zone scheme it would be approached from larger $`q`$ values just as in the free electron case. The peaks in the response for $`q_x=q_y`$ shown in Fig. 8(b) arise from the nesting vectors labeled 1 and 2 in Fig. 7.

To conclude this Section on the normal state, we consider an electron-phonon system with a self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ which depends only upon the frequency. In this case, the momentum that enters the Hankel function giving $`G(x,\omega )`$ is

$$k(\omega )k_F+\frac{(\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )}{v_F}.$$
(29)
The real part of the self-energy leads to a shift in the wave length of the modulations and the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ leads to their exponential decay on a scale $`\mathrm{}=v_F/(2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega ))`$. This behavior is reflected in a shift in the position and a rounding of the cusp in the power spectrum $`P(q,\omega )`$. For values of $`\omega `$ which are small compared to a typical phonon frequency

$$k(\omega )k_F+\frac{(1+\lambda )\omega }{v_F}$$
(30)
with $`\lambda =2N(0)|g|^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ the dimensionless electron phonon interaction strength. Here $`g`$ is the effective electron-phonon coupling and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ a typical phonon energy. As $`\omega `$ increases $`2k_F(\omega )`$ will reflect the detailed dependence of both the real and imaginary parts of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$.

## III The FT-STM Power Spectrum of a Superconductor

Next consider the case of a superconductor. Here, for an on-site energy perturbation, we have BFS93

$$\delta N(x,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }Imd^2x^{}\left(G(xx^{},\omega )G(x^{}x,\omega )F(xx^{},\omega )F(x^{}x,\omega )\right)\delta ϵ\left(x^{}\right)$$
(31)
with $`G(x,\omega )`$ the usual single particle propagator

$$G(x,\omega )=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ikx}\frac{\omega +ϵ_k}{\omega ^2ϵ_k^2\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2+i\delta }$$
(32)
and $`F(x,\omega )`$ the anomalous Gor’kov propagator

$$F(x,\omega )=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ikx}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_k}{\omega ^2ϵ_k^2\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2+i\delta }.$$
(33)
In this case ref2

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\left(G(k+q,\omega )G(k,\omega )F(k+q,\omega )F(k,\omega )\right)$$
(34)
For a 2D $`s`$-wave superconductor with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`ϵ_k=k^2/2m\mu `$, these Green’s functions have characteristic wave vectors

$$k_\pm (\omega )=k_F\left[1\pm \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\mu }\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(35)
The wave length of the ripples in $`\delta N(x,\omega )`$ are set by $`2k_\pm (\omega )`$. For $`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the ripples exponentially decay. If the impurity perturbation involved a change in the size of the gap, there would be a quasi-particle interference contribution involving $`k_+(\omega )k_{}(\omega )=2k_F\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}/\mu `$. The ripples associated with this contribution vary on a length scale set by $`v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is of order the coherence length rather than $`k_F^1`$. It is this type of spatial oscillation that is responsible for the Tomasch oscillations Tom65 . While Tomasch ripples at $`Q_T(\omega )=k_+(\omega )k_{}(\omega )`$ are not present for the case of a charge impurity in an isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductor, they can appear for a $`d`$-wave superconductor as discussed below.

As shown in Appendix B, it is straightforward to evaluate $`Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ for an $`s`$-wave BCS superconductor and one finds that

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=4\pi N^2(0)\left(\frac{\omega \sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\right)\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^24k_{}^2(\omega )}}$$
(36)
for $`2k_{}(\omega )<q<2k_+(\omega )`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi N^2(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega \sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^24k_{}^2(\omega )}}}`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`4\pi N^2(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^24k_+^2(\omega )}}}`$
for $`2k_+(\omega )<q`$. More generally, for an electron-phonon system the frequency-dependent complex gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ would replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Normalizing by $`\sqrt{n_i}N(0)|\delta ϵ|/\mu `$, as previously done for the free electron case, we have plotted $`|\overline{N}(q,\omega )|`$ versus $`q`$ in Fig. 9 for a BCS $`s`$-wave superconductor with $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu =0.1`$. The coherence factors in Eq. (36) and (37) give more weight to the $`2k_+(\omega )`$ cusp for positive values of $`\omega `$ associated with a bias voltage that probes the empty states, Fig. 9(a), while the $`q=2k_{}(\omega )`$ cusp is enhanced when the bias is reversed as shown in Fig. 9(b).

We turn next to the case of a $`d`$-wave superconductor with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)/2$$
(38)
and a bandstructure given by Eq. (28) with $`t^{}/t=0.3`$ and $`\mu =1.0`$. The Fermi surface for these parameters is shown as a dashed line in Fig. 10(a). The contours of the solid regions correspond to the loci of points where $`\omega =\sqrt{ϵ_k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}`$ for $`\omega =0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in Fig. 10(a) and $`\omega =1.1\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in Fig.10(b). Results for $`|Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi |`$ at various values of $`\omega `$ less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ are shown in Fig. 11(a) for $`q_x=q_y`$ and Fig. 11(b) for $`q_y=0`$. For the diagonal cut with $`q_x=q_y`$, there is a response at the wave vector $`𝐪_7(\omega )`$ shown in Fig. 10(a) which connects the end points of the $`\omega ^2=ϵ_k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2`$ contour. This peak is similar to the peak we have seen in the case of the ellipse discussed in the previous section. There are two identical contributions coming from the two contours on opposite sides of the Fermi surface. As the bias voltage $`eV=\omega `$ increases, one sees that $`q_7(\omega )`$ peak moves to larger values of momentum. This reflects the increase in magnitude of the wavevector $`q_7(\omega )`$ as $`\omega `$ is increased and can provide information on the $`k`$-dependance of the Fermi surface and gap Hof02 ; McE02 . In addition, there is a contribution coming from $`𝐪_3(\omega )`$ which connects the tips of two opposite contours which increases more slowly with $`\omega `$. Finally, there is a response associated with $`𝐪^{}`$ shown in Fig. 10(a). This is the response due to the wave vector labeled 1 in Fig. 7 and shown in the diagonal $`q_x=q_y`$ response of the normal metal with this same bandstructure in Fig. 8(b). Approximate analytic results for the $`d`$-wave case are given in Appendix B, Eqs. (67) and (70).

Similarly in Fig. 11(b), for $`q_y=0`$ one finds structure associated with the wave vectors $`𝐪_1`$ and $`𝐪_5`$ shown in Fig. 10(a). As discussed by McElroy et. al, McE02  this structure arises from a peak in the joint density of states associated with the overlap of the ends of two opposite $`\omega ^2=ϵ_k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2`$ contours. Just as for the case of the elliptical Fermi surface previously discussed, the strength of the cusp depends upon the curvature of the dispersion. The increase of $`q_1(\omega )`$ with increasing $`\omega `$ again provides information on the Fermi surface and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$. The peak at $`q_5(\omega )`$ initially increases with $`\omega `$ and would continue to increase in an extended zone but here, for $`\omega 0.25`$, it is reflected back into the first Brillouin zone. Finally, there is a weak cusp at low momentum $`Q_T(\omega )`$ associated with the Tomasch interference process.

Note that the response seen in $`|\overline{N}(q,\omega )|`$ associated with quasi-particle interference is actually characterized by a continuous curving cusp in the $`(q_x,q_y)`$ plane whose intensity is related to the joint density of the $`k`$ and $`k+q`$ quasi-particle states. When we take into account all four quadrants, the structure in the power spectrum $`P(q,\omega )`$ in the first Brillonin zone becomes much richer. Not only are there cusps associated with scattering processes confined to similar contour regions in quadrants 2 and 4, which give rise to a cusp whose major axis is perpendicular to that due to quadrants 1 and 3, there are cusps from scattering processes between the four nodal regions. In addition, there is the response associated with the nodal wave vector $`𝐪^{}`$. In order to see this more clearly, we have calculated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ for the case in which $`t^{}=0`$. In Fig. 12 we compare the results for $`|Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi |`$ calculated with $`t^{}=0`$ \[Fig. 12(a)\] and with $`t^{}/t=0.3`$ \[Fig. 12(b)\]. In both cases, we clearly see the contributions of $`𝐪_3`$ and $`𝐪_7`$. In addition, a $`𝐪^{}`$ contribution from the nodal region is also visible. The $`𝐪_3`$ contribution is weaker for the case in which $`t^{}=0`$. In this case we also find that $`|𝐪_3|<|𝐪^{}|`$ as one can see from the insets in the figures.

When $`\omega `$ is greater than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, structure in $`|N(q,\omega )|`$ is associated with the $`Q_\alpha `$ vectors shown in Fig. 10(b), for $`\omega =1.1\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. In this case, for $`q_x=q_y`$, $`|N(q,\omega )|`$ exhibits structure at $`q_x=Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, and $`Q_3`$, see Fig. 13(a). The weak structure at large momentum transfer $`Q_1`$ is similar to the structure for the normal state labeled ”1” in Fig.8, since the gap vanishes along the diagonal. The structures at $`Q_2`$ and $`Q_3`$ correspond to interference processes between the particle like and the hole like BCS quasi particles. Just as for the $`s`$-wave case, for $`\omega >0`$, the coherence factor gives more weight to the $`Q_2`$ process. Results for $`|N(q,\omega )|`$ versus $`q_x`$ for $`q_y=0`$ are shown in Fig. 13(b). In this case, structure appears associated with $`q_x=Q_4`$ and $`Q_5`$ with the coherence factors leading to a large response at $`Q_4`$ for positive $`\omega `$. As noted earlier, in the cuprate superconductors lifetime effects suppress this $`\omega >\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ structure, making it difficult to see in the experimental studies.

The structure in the quasi-particle interference response can also be seen in the intensity map plots of $`|Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi |`$ over the $`(q_x,q_y)`$ plane. One such map for $`\omega =0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is shown in Fig. 14. Here one sees that the response is characterized by continuous curving intensity cusps in the $`(q_x,q_y)`$ plane. Like the case of the elliptical Fermi surface, the intensity can have significant variations along the cusps due to the curvature of the quasi-particles dispersion relation. Going out from the origin along $`q_x=q_y`$ as in Fig. 12(b), one first sees a bright (high intensity region) cusp associated with $`q_7`$. At large momentum values along this same 45 line one sees a narrow bright line associated with $`q^{}`$ scattering processes which connect the outter edges of the $`\omega =\sqrt{ϵ_k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}`$ envelopes. Finally, the brighter, curved region of intensity near the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ corner arises from $`q_3`$ interference processes associated with the inner boundaries of these contours. The bright regions near $`(q_x/\pi =0.85,q_y/\pi =0.3)`$ and $`(q_x/\pi =0.3,q_y/\pi =0.85)`$ arise from interference effects associated with $`q_2`$ and $`q_6`$ of Fig. 10(a).

Finally, we consider the response of a $`d`$-wave superconductor when there is an ordered stripe array of weak scattering centers. In Fig. 15 we show the ripples produced in $`N(x,\omega )`$ when the scattering centers form a stripe-like structure oriented along the $`y`$-axis with a spacing of four lattice sites. For the parameters we have chosen, $`q_5(\omega )\pi /2`$ for $`\omega =0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ the maximum value of the $`d`$-wave gap. As seen in Fig. 15, the ordered array of stripe scattering centers produces an oriented set of ripples. These give rise to the structure in $`|N(q,\omega )|`$ shown in Fig. 16 for $`q\pi /2`$. Here we have assumed that there is quasi-particle scattering from a random array of impurities as well as the stripes. These contributions add incoherently so that

$$\left|\delta ϵ(q)\right|^2\left[1+A\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/\pi }{(q_xQ_x)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right].$$
(39)
Here $`Q_x=\pi /2`$ and we have taken $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.01`$ and $`A=0.5`$ in Fig. 16 to illustrate the possible interplay of the scattering from the random impurities and the stripes. The quasi-particle interference peak associated with $`q_1`$ moves to lower values of $`q_x`$ as $`\omega `$ increases while the response associated with the ordered array of scattering centers remains fixed at $`q_x0.5\pi `$ and only its amplitude changes with $`\omega `$. For larger values of $`A`$, the stripes would be the dominant feature while for smaller values of $`A`$ scattering from the random impurities would dominate the power spectrum.

## IV Conclusions

Here we have discussed some detailed examples which illustrate what can be learned from FT-STM studies of layered materials. For the case of a weak potential perturbation we have seen that the wave vector power spectrum of the local tunneling density of states, $`P(q,\omega )`$, contains information on the quasi-particle spectrum and the structure factor of the scatterers. This is also the case for dilute impurities even if they act as strong scattering centers and $`\delta ϵ`$ is replaced by a t-matrix. For a normal metal, one can determine information about the nesting properties of the Fermi surface from the loci of the $`𝐪`$-space cusps for $`\omega 0`$. In addition, the dressed Fermi velocity can be obtained from the $`\omega `$ dependence of the position of the cusp. In fact, from the $`\omega `$ dependence of the cusp position and its rounding, one can, in principle, obtain information on the real and imaginary parts of the electron self-energy.

In the superconducting state, one can also obtain information on both the wave vector and frequency dependence of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$. Again, just as in the case of a normal metal, the signature of these quasi-particle interference effects are continuous “arcs” of cusps in $`𝐪`$-space. However, the intensity variation along the arcs may be large due to changes in the effective density of states associated with a given momentum transfer $`𝐪`$, making the intensity appear more like spots. The rapid change in intensity is due to the small parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/t`$.

In addition to these effects, one can also obtain information on the static structure factor of the scattering potential $`|\delta ϵ_q|^2`$. As discussed in Appendix A, for the case of a local potential, averaging over a $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_x`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_y`$ block of $`q`$ values about a given $`q`$ leads to $`|\delta ϵ_q|^2/Nn_i\delta ϵ^2`$. However, if the scattering potential has long-range order, such as is the case for the $`BiO_2`$ over layer in the BISCO studies, one should see a $`q`$-dependent response in the wave-vector power spectrum of the local tunneling density of states for $`𝐪`$ values equal to the reciprocal lattice vectors of the $`BiO_2`$ layer. This response will be particularly strong for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Similarly, it should be possible to see evidence of pinned stripes in the structure factor if they are present How02 .

As discussed in the introduction, we have focused on the case of weak scattering. As noted, in this limit, where the Born approximation is adequate, one has a simple separation of the response into the quasi-particle interference effects which are contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ and the structure factor of the scatterers which is contained in $`|\delta ϵ_q|^2`$. Of course, many-body interactions will give rise to additional effects. There will be screening, changing $`\delta ϵ_q`$ to $`\delta ϵ_q/ϵ(q,0)`$ where $`ϵ(q,0)`$ is the zero frequency dielectric constant Kivup . Furthermore, there will be vertex corrections so that for example, for a strongly-interacting normal system one will have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,q,\omega )G(k+q,\omega )G(k,\omega ),$$
(40)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,q,\omega )`$ the elastic vertex for momentum transfer $`q`$ and zero energy transfer for an incoming particle with momentum $`k`$ and energy $`\omega `$. Similar vertex corrections will occur in the superconducting state. In addition, the quasi-particle dispersion relation can be altered by an interaction which breaks the translational symmetry PDDH02  leading to a different $`\omega `$ dependence of $`|N(q,\omega )|`$.

Finally, there is the form factor of the tunneling probe. Here we have neglected the momentum dependence of the tunneling matrix element and simply assumed that the conductance map was proportional to the local tunneling density of states $`N(x,\omega )`$. However, if this is not the case, a tunneling matrix element form factor

$$T(k)=\underset{l}{}e^{ikl}T(l)$$
(41)
will enter so that for a superconductor

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k}{}T^{}(k+q)T(k)\left[G(k+q,\omega )G(k,\omega )F(k+q,\omega )F(k,\omega )\right]$$
(42)
For example, a tunneling form factor

$$T(k)=(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)$$
(43)
has been suggested for the case of an STM tip on a cuprate superconductor MB01 . However. because the average tunnelling density of states in these STM experiments appears to vary linearly with $`V`$ at low voltages, we have modeled the tunnelling as a direct process and neglected its momentum dependence.

## Appendix A Random Impurity Structure Factor

Suppose we have an $`L\times L`$ section of a lattice with a concentration of $`n_i`$ impurities per unit area. Assume that if there is an impurity at site $`l`$ it has a potential $`\delta ϵ(l)=1`$, while if there is no impurity at site $`l`$, $`\delta ϵ(l)=0`$. For a given random configuration of $`N_i`$ impurities on $`L\times L=N`$ sites, corresponding to an area impurity concentration $`n_i=N_i/N`$, we have

$$\delta ϵ(q)=\underset{l}{}e^{iql}\delta ϵ(l).$$
(44)
For this configuration of impurities we can define a power spectrum with

$$P(q)=\frac{\left|\delta ϵ(q)\right|^2}{N}$$
(45)
There is of course a peak for $`q=0`$, where

$$P(0)=\frac{N_i^2}{N}.$$
(46)
However for other values of $`q`$, $`P(q)`$ fluctuates about $`n_i`$. If one were to average $`P(q)`$ over many realizations of independent impurity configurations <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 For a single impurity configuration
$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{q}{}P(q)=n_i$$
and if we drop the $`q=0`$ term then
$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{q0}{}P(q)=n_i(1n_i)$$
,

$$P(q)=n_i\text{for}q0.$$
(47)
However, if we have an $`L\times L`$ lattice with a fixed configuration of impurities, the power spectrum $`P(q)`$, given by Eq. (45), will exhibit fluctuations. If we average $`P(q)`$ over blocks of $`q`$ of width $`(\mathrm{\Delta }q_x,\mathrm{\Delta }q_y)`$ about each $`q`$ we can reduce these fluctuations. Naturally at the same time, the momentum resolution will be reduced. Define a block smoothed $`P(q)`$ average as follows:

$$\overline{P}(q)=\frac{1}{N(\mathrm{\Delta }q_x,\mathrm{\Delta }q_y)}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }q_x,\mathrm{\Delta }q_y}{^{}}P(q),$$
(48)
here the prime on the sum indicates that $`P(0)`$ is replaced with $`n_i`$ so that the $`q=0`$ peak is not broadened from the smoothing operation. The sum in Eq. (48) is over a set of q-points $`(\mathrm{\Delta }q_x/2,\mathrm{\Delta }q_x/2)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }q_y/2,\mathrm{\Delta }q_y/2)`$ about each $`q`$. $`N(\mathrm{\Delta }q_x,\mathrm{\Delta }q_y)`$ is the number of sites in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_x`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_y`$ block. We expect that the RMS fluctuations of $`\overline{P}(q)`$ will decrease inversely as the square root of the number of $`q`$-values in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_x`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_y`$ block.

For example, consider a lattice with $`L=500`$ and one configuration of random impurities with $`n_i=0.01.`$ The power spectrum $`P(q)`$, given by Eq. (45), versus $`q_x`$ for $`q_y=0`$ is shown in Fig. 17(a). Figures 17(b) and 17(c) show similar plots for the smoothed power spectrum $`\overline{P}(q)`$, given by Eq. (48), for square blocks with $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_x=\mathrm{\Delta }q_y=2\pi (2d+1)/L`$ for $`d=5`$ and $`d=10`$ respectively. Figure 17(d) shows $`\overline{P}(q)`$ for the case in which only $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_y=2\pi (2d+1)/L`$ is averaged with $`d=10`$. The solid line in each of these figures is $`n_i=0.01`$.

It is clear from the results shown in Fig. 17, that one can reduce the fluctuations in the power spectrum by averaging it over a region of q-space surrounding a given q-point. This is of course just complementary to taking the original $`L\times L`$ spatial lattice, breaking it up into $`L_B\times L_B`$ blocks with $`L_B=2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }q`$, constructing the appropriate Fourier transform for each block and then averaging over the blocks. The more blocks one has, the small the RMS fluctuations of the power spectrum of the Fourier transform. Of course, dividing the $`L\times L`$ system up into more blocks leads to a corresponding decrease in the momentum resolution. The momentum smoothing operation, Eq. (48), is just another way of blocking.

As a further test of these ideas, we calculate the RMS deviation of $`\overline{P}(q)`$ from $`n_i`$ versus the momentum block size $`2d+1`$

$$D=\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\underset{q0}{}\left(\overline{P}(q)\frac{1}{N}\underset{q0}{}\overline{P}(q)\right)^2}.$$
(49)
In Fig. 18 we show that $`D`$ varies as $`(2d+1)^1`$ for large $`d`$ for several different concentrations of impurities. The straight lines on the plot represent the asymptotic behavior in which $`D\alpha n_i/(2d+1)`$ with $`\alpha `$ of order one.

Finally, we model the behavior of the magnitude of the wave-vector Fourier transform of the local tunneling density of states by

$$\left|N(q)\right|=\sqrt{P(q)}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{qq^{}}}\hfill & \text{if }q>q^{}=\pi /4\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
The results for $`L=500`$ and $`n_i=0.01`$ are shown in Figs. 19(b)-(c) for the $`\text{BlockAvg}\left[\left|N(q_x,q_y=0)\right|\right]`$, averaged over a $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_x\times \mathrm{\Delta }q_y`$ square with $`d=5`$ and $`d=10`$ respectively. Figure 19(a) shows the unaveraged result. Similarly Fig. 19(d) shows the $`\text{LineAvg}\left[\left|N(q_x,q_y=0)\right|\right]`$ versus $`q_x`$ for the case in which we only average over a $`q_y`$ segment of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_y=2\pi (2d+1)/L`$ with $`d=10`$. Thus the $`q`$-averaging brings out the underlying structure of the quasi-particle interference factor.

Finally, we note that even without such block averaging, one is still able to see an image of the quasi-particle interference response in an intensity plot of

$$\left|\overline{N}(q,\omega )\right|=\left|\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )\right|\frac{|\delta ϵ(q)|}{\sqrt{N}}$$
(51)
over the $`(q_x,q_y)`$ plane. In Fig. 20 we show a plot of $`\left|\overline{N}(q,\omega )\right|`$ for the same parameters that were used in Fig. 14. Here $`|\delta ϵ(q)|`$ is obtained from Eq. (A1) with one realization of an impurity concentration $`n_i=0.01`$. Comparing this figure with Fig. 14, one can see that while the structure is noisy, the key features remain clearly visible.

## Appendix B Quasi-particle Interference Response

The quasi-particle interference response function for the 2D free electron gas

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }Imd^2xe^{iqx}G_o(x,\omega )G_o(x,\omega )$$
(52)
can be directly evaluated using the expression for $`G_o(x,\omega )`$ given by Eq. (15). Since the Hankel function $`H_0^{(1)}=J_0+iN_0`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi N^2(0){\displaystyle d^2xe^{iqx}J_0\left(k(\omega )r\right)N_0\left(k(\omega )r\right)}`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cccc}8\pi N^2(0)\hfill & \frac{1}{q}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^24k^2(\omega )}}& \hfill q>2k(\omega )\\ 0\hfill & & & \hfill q<2k(\omega )\end{array}`$
with $`r=|x|`$ and

$$k(\omega )=k_F\left(1+\frac{\omega }{\mu }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(56)
We also note that Carrying out the angular integration one has

$$Re\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{8\pi N(0)^2}{q^2\sqrt{q^24k^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\sqrt{q^24k^2}+1}{\sqrt{q^24k^2}1}\right|\hfill & \hfill q>2k(\omega )\\ \frac{16\pi N(0)^2}{q^2\sqrt{4k^2q^2}}\mathrm{tan}^{}1\frac{q}{\sqrt{4k^2q^2}}\hfill & \hfill q<2k(\omega )\end{array}$$
(57)
Plots of the real and imaginary parts of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(q\omega )`$ are shown in Fig. 21. As noted, in Born approximation one only sees $`Im\lambda (q,\omega )`$. However, when the scattering is stronger, giving rise to a phase shift, both $`Re\lambda (q,\omega )`$ and $`Im\lambda (q,\omega )`$ will be present in the quasi-particle interference response. The imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can also be evaluated by noting that for $`\omega >0`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}Im{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{\omega ϵ_{k+q}+i\delta }\frac{1}{\omega ϵ_k+i\delta }}`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (\omega ϵ_k)\frac{1}{ϵ_{k+q}ϵ_k}}`$
Carrying out the angular integration one has

$$\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }\frac{1}{ϵ_{k+q}ϵ_k}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2m}{\sqrt{q^44k^2q^2}}\hfill & \hfill q^2>4k^2\\ 0\hfill & \hfill q^2<4k^2\end{array}$$
(59)
so that

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=2N(0)\underset{\mu }{\overset{q^2/8m\mu }{}}𝑑ϵ_k\delta (\omega ϵ_k)\frac{2m}{\sqrt{q^44k^2q^2}}$$
(60)
which gives Eq. (55) since $`N(0)=m/2\pi `$.

For the electron-phonon case in which the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(\omega )+i\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega )`$ only depends on $`\omega `$, the angular integral can be evaluated in the same way leading to

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=2N(0)\underset{\mu }{\overset{q^2/8m\mu }{}}𝑑ϵ_k\frac{\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega )}{\left(\omega ϵ_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(\omega )\right)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2(\omega )}\frac{2m}{\sqrt{q^44k^2q^2}}.$$
(61)
Here, as usual for the electron-phonon problem we have neglected vertex corrections.

For the case of a superconductor with scattering from a site charge potential

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{(\omega +ϵ_{k+q})(\omega +ϵ_k)\mathrm{\Delta }_{k+q}\mathrm{\Delta }_k}{\left(\omega ^2E_k^2+i\delta \right)\left(\omega ^2E_{k+q}^2+i\delta \right)}$$
(62)
with $`E_k=\sqrt{ϵ_k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}`$. For a constant $`s`$-wave gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=\frac{2}{\pi }Im\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\omega +ϵ_k}{\omega ^2E_k^2+i\delta }\frac{1}{ϵ_{k+q}ϵ_k}$$
(63)
Making use of Eq. (59), we have

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=2N(0)\underset{\mu }{\overset{q^2/8m\mu }{}}𝑑ϵ_k\delta \left(\omega ^2E_k^2\right)\frac{2m}{\sqrt{q^44k^2q^2}}(\omega +ϵ_k).$$
(64)
Carrying out the $`ϵ_k`$ integration leads to the results given by Eqs. (36) - (37) in the text.

For a $`d`$-wave superconductor, we have

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )=2\frac{dk^2}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (\omega E_k)\frac{1}{2E_k}\frac{(\omega +ϵ_k)(\omega +ϵ_{k+q})\mathrm{\Delta }_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{k+q}}{E_{k+q}^2E_k^2}.$$
(65)
This integral can be approximately evaluated when $`\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for the case in which $`ϵ_k=k^2/2mk_F^2/2m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )`$. For example, for $`𝐪`$ along the 45 direction with $`q=q_x=q_y`$ and $`q>k_F\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, one finds that

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )N^2(0)\left(\frac{1}{N(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\frac{1}{k_F\sqrt{q}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q\frac{k_F\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}}$$
(66)
This corresponds to the contribution which comes from a momentum transfer that connects the ends of one $`\omega =\sqrt{ϵ_k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2}`$ contour (i.e. a $`𝐪_7(\omega )`$ wave vector) similar to the case of the ellipse discussed in Section III. The enhancement factor $`(N(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^1`$ arises from the large curvature and resulting large density of states at the contours ends.

Keeping $`q`$ along the 45 diagonal where $`q=q_x=q_y`$, there are additional square root peaks in $`Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )/\pi `$ which arise when $`𝐪`$ connects two different contours. There is a $`𝐪_3(\omega )`$-like peak near which

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )\frac{4\pi N^2(0)}{q}\left(\frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_Fq}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝐪_3(\omega )q}}$$
(67)
when

$$q<q_3(\omega )=2k_F\left(1\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)^2\right).$$
(68)
There is also a peak associated with

$$q^{}(\omega )=2k_F\left(1+\frac{\omega }{\mu }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(69)
where

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )\frac{4\pi N^2(0)}{q}\left(\frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{qq^{}(\omega )}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{qq_3(\omega )}}$$
(70)
when $`q>q^{}(\omega )`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_00`$, this last expression becomes

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Lambda }(q,\omega )\frac{4\pi N^2(0)}{q\sqrt{k_F}\sqrt{q2k(\omega )}}$$
(71)
which is the free electron result Eq. (55) for $`\omega /\mu 1`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to acknowledge useful discussions of the experimental FT-STM measurements with J.C. Davis, J.E. Hoffman, A. Kapitulnik, and K. McElroy. We also thank M.E. Flatté for discussions which rekindled our interest in this problem and S.A. Kivelson, P. Hirschfeld, R.L. Sugar and L. Zhu, for many helpful and insightful discussions during the course of our work. This work was supported by the Department of Energy under Grant #DOE85-45197. We would also like to acknowledge support provided by the Yzurdiaga gift to UCSB.


format: text

text:
# Hoop Conjecture and Black Holes on a Brane

## 1 Introduction

Black hole horizons form when and only when a mass $`M`$ gets compacted into a region whose circumference $`𝒞`$ in every direction is $`𝒞<4\pi GM`$. This is the statement of Thorn’s hoop conjecture for the necessary and sufficient condition for black hole formation in 4-dimensional general relativity. Assuming physically reasonable conditions on the matter fields, Thorne has proven that there is no marginal surface in a system with a cylindrical distribution of matter fields. In his proof, the marginal surface is a cylindrically symmetric space-like 2-surface such that the expansion of the outgoing null normal to this surface vanishes. This result, together with the Newtonian analogy, led to his conjecture.

Because of the ambiguities in the above statement, there are many proposals for a precise reformulation and attempts to prove this conjecture. Among them, the numerical simulations of Nakamura et al. and Shapiro and Teukolsky suggest that the hoop conjecture holds in 4-dimensional general relativity. Therefore, we may assume that this conjecture gives one of the critera for black hole formation and a highly elongated matter distribution does not form a black holes.

However, strictly speaking, we do not know whether general relativity can describe strong gravity in our universe even for classical situations? There is no experimental evidence for it. If general relativity is inapplicable to the situation of the strong gravity, it again becomes a non-trivial issue whether or not the hoop conjecture gives a reasonable criterion of black hole formation.

Brane worlds are regarded as alternative theories of gravity. Among several models, one of the simplest is the single-brane model proposed by Randall and Sundrum (RS II model). One of the interesting features of this model is the fact that it reproduces 4-dimensional Newtonian and general relativistic gravity on the brane to more than adequate precision. The deviation in the gravitational force from the Newtonian one appears at short length scales less than $`l:=\sqrt{6/\mathrm{\Lambda }}=3/(4\pi G_5\lambda )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ is the negative cosmological constant and $`\lambda >0`$ is the positive tension of the brane. The length scale of $`l`$ must be less than the order of one millimeter due to the experimental constraints.

It is natural to expect that 5-dimensional aspects of the RS-scenario will appear in the short-range force of gravity (the scale less than $`l`$), and hence in strong gravity with spacetime curvature radius less than $`l`$. Further, we can expect that the hoop conjecture applied to the RS brane may not be valid on scales less than $`l`$ for the following reason. In the RS-scenario, the cancellation of the long-range forces due to the negative cosmological constant and the brane tension results in the reproduction of the Minkowski spacetime, and 4-dimensional gravity is reproduced by the warp factor, due to the negative cosmological constant in the bulk. Note that both effects are due to the cosmological constant on the brane and bulk. We should note that short-range gravity is not particularly sensitive to the cosmological constant. The 5-dimensional aspects of the RS II model will appear on short-range scales. Since there are so-called “black string solutions” in 5-dimensional Einstein gravity. These are cylindrically symmetric black holes in 5-dimensional spacetime. Thus a highly elongated matter distribution may form due to the effect of 5-dimensional gravity.

In this article, we confirm the above conjectures assuming the existence of an infinite energy density of the brane. For simplicity, we concentrate on the time symmetric initial data, which is a 4-dimensional space-like hypersurface embedded in the entire spacetime with vanishing extrinsic curvature. Further, we consider a cylindrically symmetric matter distribution on the brane and the formation of the cylindrical marginal surface on the brane, since there is no marginal surface in this system within 4-dimensional general relativity. We show that a cylindrical marginal surface does form in the RS II model. Next, we discuss the hoop conjecture on the RS-brane.

## 2 Time symmetric initial value constraint

In the RS II model, the entire spacetime is governed by 5-dimensional Einstein gravity. The geometry of the 4-dimensional time-symmetric initial hypersurface $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ embedded in the 5-dimensional spacetime should satisfy the Hamiltonian constraint

$${}_{}{}^{(4)}R=16\pi G_5T_{},$$
(2.1)
where $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}R`$ is the scalar curvature on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`T_{}:=T_{ab}u^au^b`$, $`T_{ab}`$ is the 5-dimensional energy momentum tensor, and $`u^a`$ is the time-like unit vector normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In the context of the RS II model, $`T_{}`$ is given by

$$T_{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G_5}+\left(\lambda +\rho \right)\delta (\chi ),$$
(2.2)
where $`\rho `$ is the energy density of the matter field confined to the brane, and $`\chi `$ is the Gaussian normal coordinate of the brane.

The existence of the brane on the initial surface gives a discontinuity of the extrinsic curvature defined by $`\kappa _{ab}:=h_a^ch_b^dD_cn_d`$, where $`n_a`$ is the unit vector normal to $`𝒮`$, $`h_{ab}:=q_{ab}n_an_b`$, and $`D_a`$ is the covariant derivative associated with the metric $`q_{ab}`$. This discontinuity is derived from the initial value constraint (2.1). The scalar curvature on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by

$${}_{}{}^{(4)}R={}_{}{}^{(3)}R(\kappa _a^a)^2\kappa _d^c\kappa _c^d+2\frac{}{\chi }\kappa _a^a,$$
(2.3)
where $`\chi `$ is the Gaussian normal coordinate of $`𝒮`$. Then, the discontinuity of $`\kappa _b^a`$ with the $`Z_2`$-symmetry at the brane is given by

$$\kappa _a^a=4\pi G_5\left(\lambda +\rho \right).$$
(2.4)
We assume that the intrinsic geometry on the initial data is described by the following line element:

$$d\mathrm{}^2:=\varphi ^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2=\varphi ^2\left(dR^2+R^2d\phi ^2+dz^2+d\psi ^2\right).$$
(2.5)
Here, $`\psi `$ is the coordinate for the extra dimension, which is chosen so that the brane is at $`\psi =l`$ on this initial data and the brane normal is given by $`n_a=(d\chi )_a=\varphi (d\psi )_a`$. $`(R,\phi ,z)`$ represents the spatial cylindrical coordinate system on the 3-dimensional subspace orthogonal to $`n_a`$. The conformal factor $`\varphi `$ is determined by the initial value constraint (2.1) and the boundary condition at the brane (2.4). These are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{D}^a\stackrel{~}{D}_a\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\varphi ^3\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$ (2.6)
$`_\psi \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G_5}{3}}\left(\lambda +\rho \right)\varphi ^2|_{\psi =l}=0,`$ (2.7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{D}_a`$ is the covariant derivative associated with the flat line element $`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2`$. Using the fine tuning made by choosing $`l:=\sqrt{6/\mathrm{\Lambda }}=3/(4\pi G_5\lambda )`$ ($`\rho =0`$), the time-symmetric hypersurface of the Minkowski brane in the RS II model is given by $`\varphi =l/\psi `$. Since we concentrate on the cylindrically symmetric matter distribution on the brane, we solve Eq. (2.6) under the boundary condition (2.7) with $`\rho =\rho (R)`$.

## 3 Cylindrical marginal surfaces on the brane

As explained in Ref.9), we numerically solved (2.6). To solve (2.6), we consider the energy density

$$\rho (R)\varphi ^2|_{\psi =l}=\frac{3\sigma }{\pi R_\mathrm{s}^2}\left\{\left(\frac{R}{R_\mathrm{s}}\right)^21\right\}^2$$
(3.1)
on the brane. Further, we imposed boundary conditions as follows: (i) the junction condition (2.7) at the brane; (ii) regularity at the axis of the cylindrical radial coordinate $`R=0`$ by $`_R\varphi =0`$; (iii) the condition that $`\varphi l/\psi `$ behaves like the linear solution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L=O(G_5l\rho )1`$ with a singular line source $`\rho (R)=\sigma _\mathrm{L}\delta (R)/2\pi R`$ near the numerical boundaries $`\psi =\psi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`R=R_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The boundary condition (iii) for the conformal factor $`\varphi `$ guarantees that our cylindrical matter distribution is an isolated system. The linear solution of Eq.(2.6) with (2.7) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{L}:={\displaystyle \frac{2G_5\sigma _\mathrm{L}}{3}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3l}{\psi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_\mathrm{c}}{R}}\right)+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑mu_m(l)u_m(\psi )K_0(mR)\right\},`$ (3.2)
where $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ is an integration constant, $`K_0(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of the 0th kind, and $`u_m(\psi )`$ is a combination of the spherical Bessel functions of the first and second kinds:

$`u_m(\psi )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(ml)^4}{\pi ((ml)^2+1)}}}m\psi (n_1(ml)j_2(m\psi )j_1(ml)n_2(m\psi )).`$ (3.3)
Though the mode function (3.3) is slightly different from that for the static perturbation, the linear solution (3.2) on the brane is reproduced to more than adequate precision on large length scales. Actually, the asymptotic form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{L}`$ on the brane is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{L}\frac{2G_5\sigma _L}{l}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_c}{R}+\frac{l^3}{3R^3}\right).$$
(3.4)
The logarithmic behavior of this asymptotic form is due to the zero mode. This behavior is interpreted as the asymptotically conical structure of the initial surface, as in 4-dimensional Einstein gravity.

On the initial surface with the numerical data, we found the cylindrical marginal surfaces. As commented by Shiromizu and Shibata, there are two conceptually different marginal surfaces on the initial surface: One is defined by the “null” rays confined to the brane (Brane-MS) and the other is defined by the null rays that propagate in the entire spacetime, including the bulk (Bulk-MS). Brane-MS is the marginal surface for all the physical fields confined to the brane, and Bulk-MS is for all the physical fields including gravitons that propagate in the entire spacetime. Brane-MS does not depend on the causal structure of the entire spacetime, but Bulk-MS does. The marginal surfaces we found are shown in Fig. 1. Thus we found a cylindrical marginal surface on the brane that does not form in 4-dimensional Einstein gravity, as Thorne proved. These cylindrical marginal surfaces can be regarded as counter examples of the hoop conjecture by introducing appropriate definitions of the mass $`M`$ and the circumference $`𝒞`$ in the next section.

## 4 Hoop conjecture and infinite cylindrical matter distribution

Because we found a cylindrical marginal surface in the RSII model, we can say that the hoop conjecture is essentially violated in this model, i.e., a black hole may form even if the matter distribution is highly elongated. Further, the above examples are also regarded as counter-examples of the hoop conjecture. To see this, we must introduce definitions of the mass $`M`$ and the circumference $`𝒞`$ in the hoop conjecture and then we consider the marginal surface in the situation $`𝒞>4\pi GM`$.

As the definition of the mass, we adopt the total proper mass

$$M:=2\pi _0^{R_\mathrm{s}}𝑑RR_L^L𝑑z\varphi ^3(R,0)\rho (R)$$
(4.1)
within a cylinder of coordinate radius $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ and finite coordinate length $`2L`$. As the definition of the circumference, we adopt the proper length

$$𝒞:=2_L^L𝑑z\varphi (R_\mathrm{s},0)+4_0^{R_\mathrm{s}}𝑑R\varphi (R,0)$$
(4.2)
of this cylinder. We can easily check that the inequality $`𝒞>4\pi GM`$ holds for arbitrary $`L`$ if and only if the following inequality is satisfied:

$$\frac{4\pi ^2G_5}{l\varphi (R_\mathrm{s},0)}_0^{R_\mathrm{s}}𝑑RR\varphi ^3(R,0)\rho (R)1.$$
(4.3)
Since the inequality (4.3) is independent of the coordinate length $`L`$, we can apply this inequality to an infinite cylinder. This inequality gives an upper bound on the line energy density of the cylindrical matter field.

We also confirmed numerically that the inequality (4.3) holds in the above examples, and these can be regarded as counter-examples of the hoop conjecture. Therefore, we may say that the Bulk-MS can form even for such a highly elongated matter distribution that the inequality $`𝒞>4\pi GM`$ is satisfied.  In other words, the inequality $`𝒞>4\pi GM`$ is not a necessary condition for the formation of black holes with horizons in the RS scenario, although it might be a sufficient condition. In spite of the fact that cylindrical marginal surfaces do not exist in 4-dimensional general relativity, our examples suggest that massive spindle singularities in the RS scenario will be enclosed by the marginal surface.

## 5 Discussion

In this article, we have discussed the violation of the hoop conjecture in the RS II model. The existence of a cylindrical marginal surface demonstrated in this article is due to the 5-dimensional effect of gravity. Because we impose boundary conditions such that the spatial infinity on the initial surface is flat with a finite deficit angle, we conjecture that the existence of future null infinity similar to that in the AdS or Minkowski spacetime and, further, that the global hyperbolicity in the causal past of the future null infinity are guaranteed. If these conjectures hold, the formation of a marginal surface in the initial data means the formation of a black hole with an event horizon.

Though there will be static solutions with cylindrical event horizons along the brane, we also expect that these cylindrical horizon might be unstable, because many higher-dimensional black string solutions are unstable. However, even though the examples above are unstable, they show that a highly elongated marginal surface may form in the RS model as a transient phase. This is one of the features of the RS model as an alternative theory of gravity.

Though the inequality $`𝒞>4\pi GM`$ is a sufficient condition for the formation of black holes in RS model, as shown above, this inequality gives an upper bound on the radius of the black string on the brane for the following reason. The line energy density $`\sigma `$ is roughly estimated as $`\sigma M/(𝒞/2)`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of a portion whose circumference is $`𝒞`$. If the inequality $`𝒞<4\pi GM`$ holds, black holes will form in the usual sense of 4-dimensional general relativity. However, when the inequality $`𝒞>4\pi GM`$ holds, the 4-dimensional effect does not produce a black hole but black holes may form due to the 5-dimensional effects. The inequality $`𝒞>4\pi GM`$ suggests $`G_5\sigma <l/2\pi 0.16l`$ in the RS II model. Because the radius of a 5-dimensional black string is also roughly estimated by $`rG_5\sigma `$, this inequality suggests that the radius of the black string should be of order $`O(0.1l)`$ or smaller.

Our examples depicted in Fig. 1 satisfy the upper bound of the black string radius estimated above. In other words, our examples also show that on a scale a sufficiently shorter range than $`l`$, black string solutions on the brane will be approximated well by 5-dimensional black string solutions, in spite of the existence of a timelike singular hypersurface (brane). Thus, in our example, the cosmological constant and the tension of the brane do not lead to essential effects on such a scale and, the 5-dimensional features in the gravitational interaction appear as expected. To clarify whether or not the above rough estimation is reasonable for various black string solutions, it is necessary to consider black string solutions with different thickness of matter distribution and line energy density.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to D. Ida, A. Ishibashi, H. Ishihara, T. Tanaka, G. Uchida and H. Kodama for their useful comments and discussions. This work was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Creative Basic Research (No. 09NP0801) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.


text:
# Neutrino dipole moments and charge radii in noncommutative space-time

## Abstract

In this paper we obtain a bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}150}`$ TeV on the scale of space-time noncommutativity considering photon-neutrino interactions. We compute “$``$-dipole moments” and “$``$-charge radii” originating from space-time noncommutativity and compare them with the dipole moments calculated in the neutrino-mass extended standard model (SM). The computation depends on the nature of the neutrinos, Dirac versus Majorana, their mass and the energy scale. We focus on Majorana neutrinos. The “$``$–charge radius” is found to be $`r^{}=\sqrt{|r_\nu ^2_{\mathrm{NC}}|}=\left|3_{i=1}^3(\theta ^{0i})^2\right|^{1/4}\stackrel{<}{}1.6\times 10^{19}\mathrm{cm}`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}=150`$ TeV.

preprint: BUTP-2003/02preprint: CERN-TH/2003-012preprint: IUB-TH/031

In this paper we compare the consequences of the neutrino-photon interaction that can be induced by space-time non-commutativity stwr , with characteristic electromagnetic properties of neutrinos: charge radii and dipole moments. These miniscule dipole moments are sensitive probes of fluctuations at scales as small as $`10^{35}\mathrm{cm}`$, as seen through electromagnetic interactions at long range.

The action of the model that we would like to study, differs from commutative theory by the presence of $``$-products and Seiberg-Witten (SW) maps SW ; WESS ; Zumino ; calmet . In the presence of space-time noncommutativity, neutral particles can couple to gauge bosons via a $``$-commutator grosse

$$D_\mu ^{\text{NC}}\widehat{\psi }=_\mu \widehat{\psi }ie\kappa \widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{\psi }+ie\kappa \widehat{\psi }\widehat{A}_\mu ,$$
(1)
where a hat denotes noncommutative fields that are expanded in terms of regular fields via SW maps. The $``$-products originate from antisymmetric tensor fields that can conceivably be traced back to an extension of gravity. In the language of quantized gravity, noncommutative effects belong to target space, a quantum deformation of the classical base space. On target space, the $``$-products induce an algebraic structure of position operators that define noncommutative space-time. In any case, observable effects are not necessarily fixed to the Planck scale.

The effective model of neutrino and photon interactions in noncommutative space-time stwr  provides a description of the interaction of particles that enter from an asymptotically commutative region into a noncommutative interaction region WESS . The expansion in the form proposed in SW ; WESS ; Zumino ; calmet  is understood as a perturbative description of non-commutativity of the target space variables. Currently, this approach neither tries to describe dynamics of noncommutative structures nor includes nonperturbative effects. The action, written in terms of commutative fields, is gauge invariant under $`U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}`$-gauge transformations. The requirements satisfied by our model are summarized in ws . For related work on noncommutative gauge theory and phenomenology, see grosse ; ws ; HK ; carl ; tram .

Expanding the $``$-product in (1) to first order in the antisymmetric (Poisson) tensor $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, we find the following covariant derivative on neutral spinor fields:

$$D_\mu ^{\text{NC}}\widehat{\psi }=_\mu \widehat{\psi }+e\kappa \theta ^{\nu \rho }_\nu \widehat{A}_\mu _\rho \widehat{\psi }.$$
(2)
We treat $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ as a constant background field of strength $`|\theta ^{\mu \nu }|=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}^2`$ that models the non-commutative structure of space-time in the neighborhood of the interaction region carl . The scale of noncommutativity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}`$ enters by choosing dimensionless matrix elements $`c^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}^2\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ of order one. As $`\theta `$ is not invariant under Lorentz transformations, the neutrino field can pick up angular momentum in the interaction. In the following we will assume $`\theta `$ to be constant in the mean over as large an interaction region as acceptable. The bounds that we are going to derive rely on this assumption which we do not debate any further. How this regional restriction can be derived is not of our concern here. However, if string theory leads consistently to associated Seiberg-Witten maps, it is for this theory to answer those questions precisely.

The gauge-invariant action for a neutral fermion that couples to an Abelian gauge boson via (2) is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\overline{\psi }[({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}\kappa F_{\mu \nu }(i\theta ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\rho \theta ^{\mu \nu }m)]\psi ,`$
$`\theta ^{\mu \nu \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\rho +\theta ^{\nu \rho }\gamma ^\mu +\theta ^{\rho \mu }\gamma ^\nu ,`$
up to first order in $`\theta `$ stwr ; tram . The noncommutative part of (Neutrino dipole moments and charge radii in noncommutative space-time) induces a force, proportional to the gradient of the field strengths, which represents an interaction of the Stern-Gerlach type sg . This interaction is non-zero even for $`m_\nu =0`$ and in this case reduces to the coupling between the stress-energy tensor of the neutrino $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ and the symmetric tensor composed from $`\theta `$ and F stwr . Above interaction has also been derived in Ref. jabbari , following the general discussion of the photon–electron noncommutative interaction in riad . For a discussion of energy dependent Stern-Gerlach type of interactions, we refer to jabbari .

Following the general arguments of fy ; Bernstein ; shrock ; mink  only the Dirac neutrino can have a magnetic moment. However, the transition matrix elements relevant for $`\nu _i\nu _j`$ may exist for both Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. In the neutrino-mass extended standard model mink , the photon-neutrino effective vertex is determined from the $`\nu _i\nu _j+\gamma `$ transition, which is generated through 1-loop electroweak processes that arise from the so-called “neutrino–penguin” diagrams via the exchange of $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$ leptons and weak bosons, and is given by fy ; tram

$`J_\mu ^{\mathrm{eff}}(\gamma \nu \overline{\nu })ϵ^\mu (q)`$ $`=`$ $`\{F_1(q^2)\overline{\nu }_j(p^{})(\gamma _\mu q^2q_\mu \overline{)}q)\nu _i(p)_L`$ (4)
$``$ $`iF_2(q^2)[m_{\nu _j}\overline{\nu }_j(p^{})\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \nu _i(p)_L`$
$`+`$ $`m_{\nu _i}\overline{\nu }_j(p^{})\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \nu _i(p)_R]\}ϵ^\mu (q).`$
The above effective interaction is invariant under electromagnetic gauge transformations. The first term in (4) vanishes identically for real photon due to the electromagnetic gauge condition.

From the general decomposition of the second term of the transition matrix element T obtained from (4),

$`\mathrm{T}=iϵ^\mu (q)\overline{\nu }(p^{})\left[A(q^2)B(q^2)\gamma _5\right]\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \nu (p),`$ (5)
we found the following expression for the electric and magnetic dipole moments

$`d_{ji}^{\mathrm{el}}B(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _i}m_{\nu _j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\mathrm{U}_{jk}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ki}F_2({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}),`$ (6)
$`\mu _{ji}A(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _i}+m_{\nu _j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\mathrm{U}_{jk}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ki}F_2({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}),`$ (7)
where $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$ denotes neutrino species, and

$`F_2({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}1,`$ (8)
was obtained after the loop integration. In Eqs. (6) and (7) $`M^{}=4\pi v=3.1`$ TeV, where $`v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}=246`$ GeV represents the vacuum expectation value of the scalar Higgs field DMT .

The neutrino mixing matrix U MNS  is governing the decomposition of a coherently produced left-handed neutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{L,\mathrm{}}`$ associated with charged-lepton-flavor $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$ into the mass eigenstates $`\nu _{L,i}`$:

$`|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{L,\mathrm{}};\stackrel{}{p}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{}i|\nu _{L,i};\stackrel{}{p},m_i,`$ (9)
For a Dirac neutrino $`i=j`$ Bernstein ; FS . Using $`m_\nu =0.05\mathrm{eV}`$ nobel , and with the definition $`\mu _{ii}\mu _{\nu _i}`$, from (7), in units of \[$`\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}`$\] and Bohr magneton, we obtain

$`\mu _{\nu _i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{M^2}}m_{\nu _i}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{m_W^2}}|\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{}i|^2\right]`$ (10)
$``$ $`1.56\times 10^{26}[\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{eV}]=0.29\times 10^{30}[\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}]`$
$`=`$ $`1.60\times 10^{20}\mu _B.`$
From formula (10) it is clear that the chirality flip, which is necessary to induce the magnetic moment, arises only from the neutrino masses. The Dirac neutrino magnetic moment (10) is still much smaller than the bounds obtained from astrophysics FY ; AOT . More details about Dirac neutrinos can be found in VV ; VVO .

In the case of off-diagonal transition moments, the first term in (8) vanishes in the summation over $`\mathrm{}`$ due to the orthogonality condition of U (GIM cancellation)

$`d_{\overline{\nu }_j\nu _i}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _i}m_{\nu _j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}\mathrm{U}_{jk}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ki},`$ (11)
$`\mu _{\overline{\nu }_j\nu _i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _i}+m_{\nu _j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}\mathrm{U}_{jk}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ki}.`$ (12)
In Majorana 4-component notation the Hermitian, neutrino-flavor antisymmetric, electric and magnetic dipole operators are

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{D_5}{D}}\right)_{ij}^{\mu \nu }=e\psi _\mathrm{i}^{}\left[\mathrm{C}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\gamma _5}{\mathrm{i}\text{1}}}\right)\right]\psi _\mathrm{j}.`$ (13)
The characterizing feature of Majorana neutrinos, i.e. fields that do not distinguish particle from antiparticle ($`\psi _i=\psi _i^c`$), forces one to use both charged lepton and antilepton propagators in the loop calculation of neutrino-penguin diagrams, producing a transition matrix element T which is a complex antisymmetric quantity in lepton-flavor space:

$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{ji}}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^\mu \overline{\nu }_j\left[(A_{ji}A_{ij})(B_{ji}B_{ij})\gamma _5\right]\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \nu _i`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`iϵ^\mu \overline{\nu }_j\left[2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}A_{ji}2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}B_{ji}\gamma _5\right]\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \nu _i.`$
From this equation it is explicitly clear that for $`i=j`$, $`d_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{el}}=\mu _{\nu _i}=0`$. Also, considering transition moments, only one of two terms in (14) is non-vanishing if the interaction respects CP invariance: The first term vanishes if the relative CP of $`\nu _i`$ and $`\nu _j`$ is even, and the second term vanishes if it is odd shrock . Finally, the dipole moments describing the transition from Majorana neutrino mass eigenstate-flavor $`\nu _j`$ to $`\nu _k`$ in the mass extended standard model are:

$`d_{\nu _i\nu _j}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _i}m_{\nu _j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}\mathrm{ReU}_{jk}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ki},`$ (15)
$`\mu _{\nu _i\nu _j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}\left(m_{\nu _i}+m_{\nu _j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_W^2}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ImU}_{jk}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ki},`$ (16)
For the Majorana case the neutrino-flavor mixing matrix U is approximatively unitary, i.e it is necessarily of the following form DMT

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{U}_{jk}^{}\mathrm{U}_{ki}=\delta _{ji}\epsilon _{ji},`$ (17)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a hermitian nonnegative matrix (i.e. with all eigenvalues nonnegative) and

$`|\epsilon |=\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}\epsilon ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(m_{\nu _{\mathrm{light}}}/m_{\nu _{\mathrm{heavy}}}),`$ (18)
$``$ $`10^{22}\mathrm{to}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^{21}.`$
The case $`|\epsilon |=0`$ is excluded by the very existence of oscillation effects.

The neutrino dipole moments (15,16) violate lepton number by $`\pm 2`$ and for a general neutrino mass matrix, they independently violate CP. Finally, note that there is no exact GIM cancellation in lepton-flavor space, at least in the Majorana case considered here, unlike the case for off–diagonal transition matrix elements (11,12), and for quark-flavors tram .

The flavor cancellation mechanism operates partly for the Majorana light neutrino dipole moments. It is generated through the smallness of light neutrino masses controlled by their heavy counterparts, combined with the quadratic charged lepton mass asymmetry in (8,18).

Note that expressions (4) to (18) are exact in their bilinear dependence on the mixing matrix Ukj to all orders of light and inverse heavy neutrino masses. However, the mixing matrix U is subunitary, as it must be a submatrix of the truly unitary $`6\times 6`$ neutrino flavor mixing matrix.

The electromagnetic dipole moments universally reduce to the three light mass eigenfields (eigenstates) of neutrinos and antineutrinos, even though the mediating interactions proceed through light and heavy weak-interaction eigenfields (eigenstates) involving minimally six flavors. This extends the analogous situation pertaining to neutrino and antineutrino oscillations, valid at energies, in production and detection, far below the masses of heavy–neutrino flavors mink . The MNS parameterization is generated by diagonalizing the light–flavor mass matrix in (6,7). The corresponding analytic structure is quite definite, yet often globally referred to as the see–saw mechanism gell . Specific mass patterns for light-neutrino flavors arising from approximate discrete symmetries are discussed in fri .

The transition dipole moments in general receive very small contributions because of the smallness of the neutrino mass, $`|m_\nu |10^2`$ eV nobel . The largest contribution amog them is proportional to Re and Im part of $`\mathrm{U}_{3\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 2}`$, which corresponds to the $`23`$ transition.

For the sum and difference of neutrino masses we assume hierarchical structure and take $`|m_3+m_2||m_3m_2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|^{1/2}=0.05`$ eV nobel . For the MNS matrix elements we set $`|\mathrm{ReU}_{3\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 2}||\mathrm{ImU}_{3\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 2}|0.5`$. The electric and magnetic transition dipole moments of neutrinos $`d_{\nu _2\nu _3}^{\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`\mu _{\nu _2\nu _3}`$ are then denoted as $`\left(d_{\mathrm{mag}}^{\mathrm{el}}\right)_{23}`$ and are given by

$`\left|\left(d_{\mathrm{mag}}^{\mathrm{el}}\right)_{23}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{2M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{m_W^2}}\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|\mathrm{ReU}_{3\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 2}|}{|\mathrm{ImU}_{3\tau }^{}\mathrm{U}_{\tau 2}|}}\right),`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`2.03\times 10^{30}[\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{eV}]=0.38\times 10^{34}[\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}],`$
$`=`$ $`2.07\times 10^{24}\mu _B.`$
The electric transition dipole moments of light neutrinos are smaller than the ones of the d-quark. This is the order of magnitude of light neutrino transition dipole moments underlying the see–saw mechanism. It is by orders of magnitude smaller than in unprotected SUSY models.

Now we extract an upper limit on the $``$-gradient interaction. The strength of the interaction (Neutrino dipole moments and charge radii in noncommutative space-time) becomes $`|m_\nu e\kappa \theta F|`$. We compare it with the dipole transition interactions $`|Fd_{\mathrm{mag}}^{\mathrm{el}}|`$ for Majorana case (15,16). Assuming that contributions from the neutrino-mass extended standard model are at least as large as those from noncommutativity, for $`\kappa =1`$ we derive the following bound on noncommutativity arising from the Majorana nature of neutrinos:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}`$ $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{e\kappa m_\nu }{\left(d_{\mathrm{mag}}^{\mathrm{el}}\right)_{23}}}\right|^{1/2}150\mathrm{TeV}.`$ (20)
This is the main result of our considerations foot1 . In Ref. jabbari  the neutrino energy dependence was taken into account. The bound on noncommutativity thus obtained is not a strict lower limit, but rather indicate the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}`$ at which the expected values of the neutrino electromagnetic dipole moments due to noncommutativity in our model matches the standard model contributions. We would like to point out that on the scale of noncommutativity this bound involves only the basic properties of neutrinos and photons.

We proceed with determination of the radius of the photon–neutrino interaction, by evaluating the quantity that we shall call the neutrino $``$-charge radius $`r^2=r_\nu ^2_{\mathrm{NC}}`$. Since noncommutativity can be a source of “transvers plasmon” decay into neutrino–antineutrino pairs stwr , this is to be compared with the same process induced by the neutrino charge radii defined by the axial electromagnetic interaction form factor shrock ; Bernstein ; Altherr ; dsm ; as ; salati ; BPV ; fs  in the neutrino-mass extended standard model:

$`r_\nu ^2=6\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F_1(q^2)}{q^2}}\right]_{q^2=0};\left[F_1(q^2)\right]_{q^20}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{6}}r_\nu ^2,`$ (21)
which in the limit of massless neutrinos corresponds to

$`r_\nu _{\mathrm{}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{M^2}}\left(32\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{m_W^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_W}{m_{\mathrm{}}}}\right).`$ (22)
We estimate the charge radii in the standard model from (22) by taking $`\mathrm{}=e`$: $`\sqrt{|r_{\nu _e}^2|}0.64\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{16}`$ \[cm\]. Here we remark that astrophysical estimates give interesting bounds gm1 ; gm ; hnr ; okada . These calculations should implement all neutrino flavor properties. The so derived bounds may also help in establishing the Majorana nature of light neutrinos.

To estimate the $``$-charge radii we first evaluate the partial width

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SM}}(\gamma \overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{L}\nu _{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{L})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{144}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^6}{E_\gamma }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\left|r_\nu _{\mathrm{}}^2\right|^2,`$ (23)
which gives the SM rate induced by the charge radii as .

For plasmon at rest $`q^2=E_\gamma ^2=\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}^2`$. Taking the average value of the plasmon frequencies of red-giant and white-dwarf stars $`\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}=15`$ keV as ; salati , we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SM}}^1(\gamma \overline{\nu }\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{keV}}{\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}}}\right)^5\times 0.25\times 10^{13}\mathrm{years}`$ (24)
$``$ $`3\times 10^6\mathrm{years}.`$
This value has to be compared with astrophysical observations.

The next step is to compare (23) with the noncommutative rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NC}}(\gamma \overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{L}\nu _{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{L})`$.

From Eq. (Neutrino dipole moments and charge radii in noncommutative space-time) we extract the following gauge-invariant amplitude for the $`\gamma (q)\nu (k^{})\overline{\nu }(k)`$ vertex in momentum space for the left–chiral neutrinos:

$`_{\gamma \nu \overline{\nu }}=ie\kappa \overline{\psi }_L(\theta ^{\mu \nu \rho }k_\nu q_\rho )\psi _Lϵ_\mu (q).`$ (25)
The amplitude (24) for the off-shell photon decay to massless Majorana neutrinos, leads to the following rate in the c.m. system stwr :

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NC}}(\gamma \overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{L}\nu _{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{L})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2q^6}{\mathrm{E}_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(c^{0i})^2.`$ (26)
The coefficients, ($`c^{0i}`$), are not independent. In pulling out the overall scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}`$, we can always impose the constraint $`_{i=1}^3(c^{0i})^2\stackrel{}{E}_\theta ^2=1`$ HK .

We obtain the $``$–charge radii, which in fact could represent the range of noncommutativity, to be a simple function of the scale of noncommutativity:

$$r^{}=\sqrt{|r_\nu ^2_{\mathrm{NC}}|}=\frac{\sqrt{\sqrt{3}\kappa }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}}.$$
(27)
The bound from Majorana neutrino induced scale of noncommutativity (20), for $`\kappa =1`$ implies foot2

$`r^{}\stackrel{<}{}1.6\times 10^{19}[\mathrm{cm}].`$ (28)
This means that the $``$–induced charge radii $`r^{}`$ at the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{NC}}\stackrel{>}{}150\mathrm{TeV}`$ scale, are dominated by the neutrino-mass extended standard model physics and are practically unobservable.

Note that there are polarization phenomena induced by the noncommutativity tensor $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, which would involve correlations between spin and momenta. These, however, have been integrated out in our estimate. The motivation to do so lies in the fact that our model for the photon–neutrino interaction represents only the tree-level effective noncommutative gauge field theory in which the question of renormalization is not addressed stwr ; jabbari ; riad ; UV/IR ; luis .

In conclusion, we have compared the neutrino-mass extended standard model charge radii and electromagnetic dipole moments of neutrinos with their analogs arising from a theory of noncommutative space-time. If the charge radii and electromagnetic dipole moments should be found experimentally different from those predicted by the neutrino-mass extended standard model, as indicated from astrophysics gm1 ; gm ; hnr ; okada , then this could be a signature of noncommutativity. We observe that the sensitivity to noncommutativity in our model involving neutrinos stwr  appears to be a function of the scale of energy involved in the physical process, running from the weak scale stwr  up to a few hundreds of TeV’s \[this work\]. In this way we can “understand” neutrinos as particles which manifest them self as Majorana objects at the short distances (high energies).

Independently of the noncommutative part of the story, we believe that the difference between (10) and (19), produced by standard model physics, points toward the right direction for the determination of the real nature of neutrinos. We hope that this comparison sheds light on the magnitude of associated phenomena thus induced. Our results relate to a set of physics problems that involve mass and electromagnetic properties of neutrinos.

We would like to thank G. Raffelt for suggesting the study of the neutrino charge radii and J. Wess for many helpful discussions leading to the construction of our model.

The work of P.M. is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The work of J.T. is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002.