text:
# Lateral current density fronts in asymmetric double-barrier resonant-tunneling structures

## I Introduction

Charge accumulation in the well of a double-barrier resonant tunneling (DBRT) structure leads to electrostatic feedback that increases the energy of the quasibound state with respect to the emitter, thus making resonant tunneling possible for higher applied voltages . This may result in bistability when the high current density and low current density states coexist in a certain range of the applied voltage. The current-voltage characteristic becomes Z-shaped instead of the conventional N-shape . It has been pointed out that the bistability provides a basis for formation of lateral current density patterns like traveling current density fronts . Once triggered, such a front leads to switching of the structure between the on– and off–state, depending on the applied voltage . Front propagation in the DBRT provides a unique example of nonlinear pattern formation in a system with quantum transport. In the context of the DBRT studies, it represents a novel switching process (trigger front) which is spatially inhomogeneous and is likely to determine the general properties of switching dynamics in large-area DBRT structures.

Recent theoretical work  has essentially focused on the qualitative behavior of current density fronts, whereas the possibility of their experimental observation crucially depends on quantitative parameters, first of all on the front propagation velocity and the front width. This is due to the limits of temporal resolution and finite lateral dimensions of DBRT structures. In this article we aim to bridge this gap and present the results of numerical simulations of front dynamics in asymmetric DBRT structures that provide a wide range of bistability and thus are favorable for experimental observation. We also discuss the specific design of DBRT structures that are suitable for such experiments.

## II Model of the DBRT structure

The bistability of a DBRT structure occurs due to the charge accumulation in the quantum well . As a result of the electrostatic feedback the potential of the bottom of the well $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depends not only on the applied voltage $`u`$, but also on the built-up electron concentration $`n`$ (Fig.1). For structures with narrow well and thick barriers the $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u,n)`$ dependence can be calculated by representing electrons in the well as a sheet charge of negligible width :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,n)=\frac{b_1}{d}u+\frac{b_1b_2}{d}\frac{en(x,y)}{ϵϵ_0},d=b_1+b_2.$$
(1)
Here $`u<0`$ is the applied voltage, $`e<0`$ is the electron charge, $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ_0`$ are the relative and absolute permittivities of the material, respectively. The effective widths of the emitter-well barrier $`b_1`$ and the well-collector barrier $`b_2`$ include the half-width of the well, and $`b_2`$ also includes the width of the depleted collector layer (Fig.1) . Eqn.(1) is also applicable in the case when the built-up concentration is inhomogeneously distributed in the transverse $`(x,y)`$plane, provided that the transverse variations of $`n(x,y,t)`$ are smooth in the sense that their characteristic length is much larger than the effective thickness of the structure $`d`$. Below we will show that this condition is indeed met for current density fronts.

In the regime of sequential tunneling the DBRT structure can be described by the continuity equation for the electron density per unit area in the well $`n(x,y,t)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}_{}𝐉_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\left(J_{ew}J_{wc}\right),`$ (2)
$`_{}`$ $``$ $`𝐞_x{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+𝐞_y{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}},`$ (3)
where $`J_{ew}(x,y)`$ and $`J_{wc}(x,y)`$ are local densities (per unit area) of the emitter-well and the well-collector currents, respectively, $`𝐉_{}`$ is the density (per unit length) of the transverse current in the well.

The transverse redistribution of charge in the well is treated semiclassically in the drift-diffusion approximation according to Ref.. The drift component of $`𝐉_{}`$ is proportional to the lateral electrical field $`_{}=_{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Eq.(1) yields $`_{}_{}n`$, and hence the drift current, similar to the diffusive current, turns out to be proportional to the gradient of the built-up electron concentration. This allow us to represent the transverse current density in the well in terms of an effective concentration-dependent diffusion coefficient $`D(n)`$ :

$`𝐉_{}`$ $`=`$ $`eD(n)_{}n,`$ (4)
$`D(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|e|\mu n}{4ϵϵ_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4b_1b_2}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_B}{1\mathrm{exp}[n/(\rho _0kT_W)]}}\right).`$ (5)
Here $`\mu `$ is electron mobility in the well, $`r_B=(4\pi ϵϵ_0\mathrm{}^2)/(e^2m)`$ is Bohr radius in the semiconductor material, $`\rho _o=m/(\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$ is the 2D density of states, $`m`$ is the effective electron mass and $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The derivation of Eq.(4) assumes a Fermi distribution in the well . The electron temperature $`T_W`$ in the well can be different from the substrate temperature $`T`$. In the following we assume a substrate temperature $`T=4`$ K.

The emitter-well and well-collector current densities are modelled by simple approximate formulas

$`J_{ew}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{}}}\left[\rho _o\mathrm{\Delta }n\right]`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctan}\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left(2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\right)}{\pi }},`$ (7)
$`J_{wc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{}}}n,`$ (8)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(n,u)E_e^FE_We\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }(n,u)E_We\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(9)
denote the energy of the quasibound state with respect to the Fermi level and the bottom of the conduction band in the emitter, respectively, $`E_e^F`$ is the Fermi energy in the emitter, $`E_W>E_e^F`$ is the energy of the quasibound state with respect to the bottom of the well, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ are the energy broadenings associated with the emitter-well and the well-collector barriers, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{scatt}`$ is the total broadening of the quasi-bound state resulting from the escape via emitter-well barrier, well-collector barrier and scattering in the well, respectively. The broadening of the quasi-bound state is characterized by a Lorentzian spectral function. The assumption of sequential tunneling implies that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{scatt}`$. Similar models for vertical transport have also been used in Refs..

Eqn.(7) has a transparent physical meaning: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{}`$ is the tunneling rate between the emitter and the well; $`[\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }n]`$ is the difference between the number of transverse tunneling modes available for the given position of the quasibound state  and the number of occupied states in the well; the last factor accounts for smooth decrease of current near the resonance breaking points $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Eqn.(8) describes the one-way tunneling from the well to the collector with a rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/\mathrm{}`$. In the stationary state the current density $`J`$ is proportional to the electron concentration $`n`$ stored in the well. Formal derivation of this transport model  is based on the following essential assumptions:

(i) barriers are high in the sense that the matrix element of the emitter-well and well-collector transitions do not depend on the vertical (in $`z`$direction) electron momentum, hence the barriers are fully characterized by constant transparencies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$;

(ii) the temperature of the substrate $`T`$ and the electron temperature of the well $`T_W`$ are small compared to $`E_e^F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ ;

(iii) the Fermi level in the collector is lower than the bottom of the well.

Combining (1)–(8) and taking into account only one transverse dimension, we obtain the following nonlinear parabolic equation for the built-up electron charge

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left(D(n){\displaystyle \frac{n}{x}}\right)+f(n,u),`$ (10)
$`f(n,u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\left(J_{ew}(u,n)J_{wc}(n)\right).`$ (11)
In the stationary state $`J=J_{ew}=J_{wc}`$, and the local current–voltage characteristic $`J(u)=J(u,n(u))`$ is determined by the stationary $`n(u)`$dependence together with Eqns.(7),(8). The $`n(u)`$dependence, in turn, follows from the steady-state condition $`f(n,u)=0`$. The $`J(u)`$ characteristic is bistable for sufficiently small broadening of the quasi-bound state $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. A typical example of such Z-shaped characteristics is shown in Fig.2.

We use the following set of material and structure parameters: $`ϵ=12`$ and $`m=0.067m_0`$ (for GaAs), where $`m_0`$ is the free electron mass; $`E_e^F=10\mathrm{meV}`$, $`\mu =10^5\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{Vs}`$, $`E_W=40\mathrm{meV}`$, $`T=4K`$. The effective width of the emitter-well barrier is taken as $`b_1=10\mathrm{nm}`$. The effective width of the second barrier $`b_2`$ includes the width of the depletion layer in the collector $`l_d(ϵϵ_0u)/(eN_Dd)`$ (see Fig.1), which lies in the interval $`10\mathrm{}100\mathrm{nm}`$ for the typical doping level $`N_D=10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the collector .

The dependence of the transparencies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ on the actual barrier widths can be evaluated by solving the one-dimensional Schrödinger equation . Compact formulas for the transparencies of GaAs/AlGaAs barriers are given in Ref.. Typical values are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}0.1\mathrm{}1`$meV for barrier widths of the order of 10 nm . The corresponding tunneling time is $`\tau _T0.06\mathrm{}0.6\mathrm{ps}`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{scatt}`$ can be estimated on the basis of the electron mobility in the quantum well. Typical mobility values $`\mu 10^4\mathrm{}10^5\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{Vs}`$ yield $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{scatt}e\mathrm{}/m\mu 0.1\mathrm{}1\mathrm{meV}`$ . The corresponding momentum relaxation time $`\tau _m`$ is of the order of 1 ps or less. Below we assume the total broadening of the quasibound state to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=1\mathrm{}2\mathrm{meV}`$, and take into account that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R<\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. After tunneling from the emitter to the quantum well the transverse kinetic energy of an electron is transferred to the lattice. The temperature of the electron gas in the well depends on the relation between the energy relaxation time $`\tau _e`$ and the tunneling time $`\tau _T`$ . The limit cases $`\tau _e\tau _T`$ and $`\tau _e\tau _T`$ correspond to a cold ($`T_WT`$) and hot ($`T_W>T`$) electron gas, respectively. Since for resonant tunneling conditions the transverse kinetic energy is limited by $`E_e^F`$, the upper bound for the electron temperature is given by $`T_W=E_e^F/k100`$ K. Below we consider the whole range of relevant temperatures $`T<T_W<E_e^F/k`$ and find that the effect of electron heating on the front dynamics is negligible.

## III Range of bistability

We shall start with two simple analytical estimates for the range of bistability $`\mathrm{\Delta }u|u_{th}u_h|`$, where $`u_h`$ and $`u_{th}`$ are the left and right turning points of the Z-shaped current-voltage characteristic that correspond to the holding and threshold voltages, respectively (see Fig.2). In the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_WE_e^F`$ the current–voltage characteristic becomes piecewise linear. Then the ultimate upper bound for the bistability range $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ immediately follows from Eqns.(7),(8) and the condition $`J_{ew}=J_{wc}`$ (see also (33) in the Appendix):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=\frac{1}{|e|}\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}\frac{b_2}{r_B}E_e^F.$$
(12)
Eq.(12) indicates that low transparency $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ and large effective thickness $`b_2`$ of the well-collector barrier are favorable for bistability. (Note that with increasing $`d`$ the intrinsic capacitance of the well becomes smaller, enhancing the electrostatic feedback from the built-up electron charge.)

For finite broadening of the quasibound state $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ the bistability range shrinks or even disappears. This effect can be evaluated analytically by using a square-shaped spectral function

$`A_W(E,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}}(\mathrm{\Theta }(EE_kE_We\mathrm{\Phi }_W+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W/2)`$ (13)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(EE_kE_We\mathrm{\Phi }_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_W/2)),`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside function, instead of the Lorentzian spectral function

$$A_W(E,𝐤)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}{\left[(EE_kE_We\mathrm{\Phi }_W)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2/4\right]},$$
(15)
that has been used to derive Eqns.(7),(8). (Here $`𝐤`$ is the transverse electron momentum and $`E_k`$ is the corresponding kinetic energy.) This substitution yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u\frac{1}{|e|}\left[\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}\frac{b_2}{r_B}\left(E_e^F\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}{2}\right)\frac{d}{b_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\right].$$
(16)
According to (16), the effect of geometrical asymmetry $`b_1b_2`$ is not monotonic: for fixed total width $`d=\mathrm{const}`$ there is an optimal ratio

$$\frac{b_1}{d}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}\frac{r_B}{d}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}{2E_e^F\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}}.$$
(17)
Eqn.(16), along with Eqn.(12), predicts that $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ monotonically increases with decrease of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ ratio. In contrast to this conclusion, the ranges of bistability calculated numerically for the full model (7),(8) (see Fig.3) show that there is an optimal ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$, roughly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/\mathrm{\Gamma }_L0.2`$, that corresponds to the widest bistability range. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ is too small, the bistability vanishes due to the relative increase of current density in the off-state. Eqn.(16) does not catch this effect because the oversimplified spectral function (14) inadequately describes the low-branch of the current–voltage characteristic .

## IV Stationary propagating fronts

General properties. Stationary moving fronts correspond to self-similar solutions of Eqn.(10) $`n(x,t)=n(xvt)`$ satisfying the boundary conditions $`n(\mathrm{})=n_{on}`$, $`n(+\mathrm{})=n_{off}`$, where $`n_{on}`$ and $`n_{off}`$ are the electron concentrations in the well in the on- and off-states, respectively. Such solutions give a good approximation for fronts in a finite system with lateral size $`L`$ much larger than the front width $`W`$, regardless of the actual boundary conditions for built-up concentrations at the lateral edges of the DBRT. A positive velocity $`v>0`$ corresponds to propagation of the on-state into the off-state (hot front), a negative velocity corresponds to propagation of the off-state into the on-state (cold front); this triggers switching between the two states. In the co-moving frame $`\xi =xvt`$ Eqn.(10) becomes an ordinary differential equation

$$\frac{d}{d\xi }\left(D(n)\frac{dn}{d\xi }\right)+v\frac{dn}{d\xi }+f(n,u)=0.$$
(18)
Multiplying by $`D(n)dn/d\xi `$ and integrating over $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\xi `$ yields

$$v=\frac{_{n_{off}}^{n_{on}}f(n,u)D(n)𝑑n}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}(dn/d\xi )^2D(n)𝑑\xi }.$$
(19)
The direction of front propagation is determined by the sign of the numerator in Eq.(19), and hence by the applied voltage $`u`$. The equal areas rule $`_{n_{off}}^{n_{on}}f(n,u_{co})D(n)𝑑n`$ corresponds to $`v=0`$ and specifies the voltage $`u_{co}`$ at which a stationary current density front exists.

Formula for the front velocity. In the limit case of small broadening of the quasibound state $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_WE_e^F`$ equation (18) can be integrated analytically, if we additionally assume $`D(n)=D_0=const`$ (see Appendix). This leads to the following approximate $`v(u)`$dependence

$$v=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_LD_0}{\mathrm{}}}\frac{(1+\sqrt{\alpha _{RL}}A)^2}{2A}\frac{r_B}{b_2}\frac{|e|(uu_{co})}{E_e^F},$$
(20)
where

$$\lambda \frac{4b_1b_2}{dr_B},\alpha _{RL}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L},A\sqrt{\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1}+\sqrt{\alpha _{RL}}$$

and $`u_{co}`$ is determined by (44). Generally, Eqn.(20) is applicable to slow fronts when $`|e(uu_{co})|E_e^F`$.

The diffusion coefficient $`D_0`$ can be estimated on the basis of Eqn.(4), assuming drift-dominated transport in the well and choosing an average concentration $`n`$ in the front wall

$`D_0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|e|\mu b_1b_2}{ϵϵ_0d}}n={\displaystyle \frac{\mu \lambda }{|e|\rho _o}}n,`$ (21)
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{on}(u_{co})+n_{off}(u_{co})}{2}},`$ (22)
where $`n_{on}(u_{co})`$ and $`n_{off}(u_{co})`$ are the electron concentrations in the well for on- and off-states at $`u=u_{co}`$, respectively. (We note that the assumption of drift-dominated transport is supported by the numerical results presented below.) Using (34) and (44), we substitute (21) into (20) and get

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_LE_e^F}{e\mathrm{}}}}`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\sqrt{\alpha _{RL}}A)^3(1+\lambda +\sqrt{\alpha _{RL}}A)}{\lambda (\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1)A^2}}}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{|e|(uu_{co})}{E_e^F}}.`$ (25)
According to (12) the width of the bistability range $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ is of order of $`E_e^F`$, and the second factor in (25) is of the order of unity for realistic structure parameters. Hence the order of magnitude value of the front velocity is given by

$$v\sqrt{\frac{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_LE_e^F}{e\mathrm{}}}.$$
(26)
We get $`v10^7\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$ for $`E_e^F=10\mathrm{meV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=1\mathrm{meV}`$ and $`\mu =10^5\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{Vs}`$.

Numerical results. Numerical results for the front velocity $`v(u)`$ and front width $`W(u)`$ are summarized in Fig.4. It follows from Eqn.(10) that these quantities scale as

$$v\sqrt{Df}\mathrm{and}W\sqrt{\frac{D}{f}},$$
(27)
respectively. The scaling rules (27) allow one to extend the numerical results to any value of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$ according to $`v\sqrt{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_L}`$ and $`W\sqrt{\mu /\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}`$, provided that the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ are kept the same.

The order of magnitude values of the front velocity and the front widths are $`10^7\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$ (in accordance with (26)) and $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$, respectively (Fig.4). For lateral dimensions of the order of $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$, the switching times are thus less than 1 ns. The front width exceeds both the thickness of the structure $`d50\mathrm{nm}`$ and the mean free path of the electron in the well which can be estimated as $`\mathrm{}_m0.1\mathrm{}1\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for $`\mu =10^5\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cms}`$ . Hence the local approximation in (1) and the drift-diffusion approximation (4) for the lateral transport in the well are indeed justified for the obtained front solutions. Cold fronts are faster and wider than hot fronts. This is the result of the higher contrast between $`n_{on}`$ and $`n_{off}`$ near the right turning point $`u_{th}`$ of the current-voltage characteristic. The estimate of Eqn. (25) for the same set of parameters is shown in Fig.4(a) by the dashed line. Despite of the rough approximations adopted to derive (25) (see Appendix), it gives the correct order of the magnitude of the front velocity.

In order to evaluate the significance of heating of the electron gas in the well we have performed simulations for $`T_WE_e^F/k=100\mathrm{K}`$, which corresponds to the upper bound of the electron temperature $`T_W`$ (Fig.4a, curve 2). It is found that heating has a visible but minor effect on front velocity. This indicates the drift-dominated lateral transport in the quantum well. To confirm this conclusion we have also performed simulations for $`T_W=0`$, when lateral diffusion in the well is minimized and have found that the front velocity is practically the same as for $`T_W=T=4\mathrm{K}`$ (Fig.4a, curve 1). Generally, according to (4) the drift component of the lateral current is much larger than the diffusion component for $`n\rho _0kT_W`$ . As it follows from the characteristic shown in Fig.2, for $`T=T_W`$ this condition is satisfied for almost the whole range of concentrations $`[n_{on},n_{off}]`$ within the propagating front. Note that since the effective diffusion coefficient in (4) is concentration-dependent, the voltage $`u_{co}`$ shifts with electron temperature $`T_W`$. The right and left extreme points for $`u_{co}`$ correspond to the limits $`T_W0`$ (pure drift) and $`T_W\mathrm{}`$ (pure diffusion), respectively.

## V Discussion: towards experimental observation of front dynamics.

Since the pioneering work  the experimental observation of bistability in DBRT structures has become a routine. Despite of this, to the best of our knowledge lateral current density patterns in the DBRT, predicted already several years ago, have not yet been observed experimentally. Below we discuss the potential problems of such measurements in view of our theoretical findings.

Sectional design of DBRT structure. Achievements of modern growth technology have made it possible to manufacture resonant-tunneling structures with sophisticated design , opening up the way to study transverse current density patterns in the DBRT experimentally. Here we propose the simplest design of a DBRT diode with a sectional emitter that allows to trigger a current density front and to observe its propagation by means of electrical measurements. Such a device constitutes of identical sections with individual emitters but common collector so that the bias can be applied separately to each section. To trigger a hot front the system should be prepared in the uniform off-state. This can be done by applying a voltage $`u>u_h`$ to all emitter sections and subsequently decreasing this voltage to a value $`u_h<u<u_{co}`$. Then the DBRT can be switched on locally by a short negative voltage pulse $`u<u_h`$, applied to either lateral or central section of the device. The resulting front propagation can be monitored by measuring the electrical current in the parallel sections of the device.

Barriers asymmetry. Our results suggest that to achieve the widest bistability range the transparency of the well-collector barrier should be approximately 5 times smaller than the transparency of the emitter-well barrier.

Front velocity and time resolution. Our simulations show that the order of magnitude values of the front velocity and width are $`10^7\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$ and $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$, respectively. It implies that the lateral dimension of suitable DBRT structure should exceed $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Since it takes about 1 ns for the front to cross such a structure, reliable measurements of front propagation demand for time resolution of 100 ps or better. The fronts become slower with decreasing transparency of the barriers $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. However, then the front width $`W`$ will increase (see Eq.(27)), setting severe additional limitations on the lateral dimension of the appropriate DBRT structure. For example, decreasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$ by one order of magnitude to the values $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.05\mathrm{meV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=0.01\mathrm{meV}`$ results in a front width of the order of $`30\mu \mathrm{m}`$, whereas the width of the cold front can exceed $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Finally we note that in the regime of coherent tunneling the front velocity is expected to be of the order of the Fermi velocity $`v_f=\sqrt{2E_e^F/m^{}}`$  . This yields $`10^8\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$ for $`E_e^F=10\mathrm{meV}`$.

Hot or cold fronts ? The width of a hot front is considerably smaller than the width of cold fronts and its velocity is somewhat lower (Fig.4). Hence a hot front is expected to be an easier target for experimental observation than a cold front.

Pinning of the front. Pinning on small imperfections of the reference media has been recognized as an important mechanism capable of preventing the front propagation in nonlinear systems . In the case under consideration both technological imperfections of the DBRT structure and the spatial inhomogeneity due to the sectional DBRT design may play a role. Due to the exponential dependence of the barrier transparencies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$ on the barrier width, the embedded fluctuations of the barrier width are the most important among technological imperfections. In presence of imperfections the stationary current–voltage characteristic includes additional stable branches that correspond to nonuniform current density profiles associated with imperfections . These steady non-uniform states remain observable, though the uniformly propagating fronts may not be possible in low-quality structures.

Effect of the external circuit. Generally, bistable DBRT elements can be operated via an external load. In contrast to the well known case of S-type bistability, in the system with Z-type bistability an external load provides a positive, not negative feedback upon front dynamics. In particular, stationary current density patterns are not stable even under current-controlled conditions . An active external circuit which simulates a negative external load resistance and reverses the sign of feedback has been implemented experimentally in Ref.. We refer to Refs. for the further discussion of the effect of external circuit on dynamics and stability of current density patterns.

DBRT-based 3-electrode switch. The sectional DBRT with two small (control) sections separated by a large (main) section can be potentially used in applications as a controllable switch. By applying a control voltage pulse to the side sections, the rest of the structure can be switched to the on– or off–state via propagation of a lateral current density front. Note that in semiconductor device physics propagation of switching fronts in three-electrode bistable devices is a well known process which is used, e.g, in thyristors in certain regimes of operation .

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to A. Wacker, L.E. Wernersson and V. Cheianov for useful discussions. This work has been supported by DFG in the framework of Sfb 555. One of the authors (P.R.) acknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

## Analytical approximation for the front velocity.

In the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_WE_F^e`$ the local kinetic function becomes piecewise linear:

$`f(n,u)={\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{}}}(\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(e\gamma uE_W+E_e^F)}{\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1}}n\right]`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{for}n[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(e\gamma uE_W)}{\lambda }};{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(e\gamma uE_W+E_e^F)}{\lambda }}],`$ (29)
$`f(n,u)={\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{}}}\alpha _{RL}n`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{for}n[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(e\gamma uE_W)}{\lambda }};{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(e\gamma uE_W+E_e^F)}{\lambda }}],`$ (31)
where the following notations have been introduced

$$\lambda \frac{4b_1b_2}{dr_B},\gamma \frac{b_1}{d},\alpha _{RL}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}.$$
(32)
For a voltage $`u`$ within the bistability range (note that $`u<0`$ and $`e<0`$ )

$$u_{th}=\frac{E_W}{e\gamma }+\frac{1}{e\gamma }\frac{\lambda E_e^F}{1+\alpha _{RL}}<u<u_h=\frac{E_W}{e\gamma }$$
(33)
the electron concentration in the well is given by

$`n_{on}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(e\gamma uE_W+E_e^F)}{\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1}};`$ (34)
$`n_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(e\gamma uE_W)}{\lambda }};`$ (35)
$`n_{off}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (36)
for on, intermediate and off states, respectively. The corresponding current-voltage characteristic is also piecewise linear.

Using (28) and assuming for simplicity $`D(n)=D_0=const`$, we find an explicit solution of Eqn.(18)

$`n(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`n_{int}\mathrm{exp}(\beta _1(v)\xi )`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{for}`$ $`0<n<n_{int}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{}<\xi <0;`$ (38)
$`n(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`n_{on}(n_{on}n_{int})\mathrm{exp}(\beta _2(v)\xi )`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{for}`$ $`n_{int}<n<n_{on}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<\xi <+\mathrm{},`$ (40)
where

$`\beta _1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2D_0}}+\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{2D_0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{}D_0}}\alpha _{RL}};`$ (41)
$`\beta _2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2D_0}}+\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{2D_0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{}D_0}}(\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1)}.`$ (42)
Continuity of the first derivative $`dn/d\xi `$ at $`\xi =0`$ gives the condition

$$(\beta _1(v)+\beta _2(v))\frac{e\gamma uE_w}{\lambda }=\beta _2(v)\frac{e\gamma uE_w+E_e^F}{\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1}.$$
(43)
This condition (43) implicitly determines the dependence of the front velocity $`v`$ on the applied voltage $`u`$. Linearization of this dependence near the voltage

$$u_{co}=\frac{E_W}{e\gamma }+\frac{1}{e\gamma }\frac{\lambda E_e^F}{1+\alpha _{RL}+\sqrt{\alpha _{RL}}\sqrt{\lambda +\alpha _{RL}+1}}$$
(44)
that corresponds to $`v=0`$ leads to the explicit $`v(u)`$dependence (20). The obtained dependence is equivalent to the linearization of Eqn.(19).


format: text

text:
# Topological phase for entangled two-qubit states

## Abstract

We present an unambiguous characterization of the rotation group $`SO(3)`$ biconnectedness topology using two-qubit maximally entangled states. We show how to generate cyclic evolutions of these states, which are in one-to-one correspondence to closed paths in $`SO(3)`$. The difference between the well known two classes of such paths translates into the gain of a global phase of $`\pi `$ for one class and no phase change for the other. We propose a simple quantum optics interference experiment to demonstrate this topological phase shift.

Two-qubit states are the simplest quantum mechanical systems displaying entanglement. Maximally entangled states (MES) allow for a clear and measurable distinction between classical and quantum mechanical predictions, as exemplified by Bell type inequalities Bell . They also play a decisive role in quantum information processes, like teleportation or dense coding QuInfo . In addition, it is known that any quantum computing protocol involving many qubits can be implemented by concatenation of one or two-qubit gates QuInfo . This is why much attention has been paid to two-qubit systems, their properties and characterizations.

In the present work, we intend to show that two-qubit MES can also be used to display, even experimentally, the well known double-connectedness of the $`SO(3)`$ rotation group. Since the latter is often evoked to explain the minus sign multiplying a spin $`1/2`$ state after a $`2\pi `$ rotation, we shall first argue that this is to some respect an ambiguous statement. Indeed, take one qubit state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t=0)=\alpha |0+\beta |1`$ subject to the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ (an effective magnetic field along the $`z`$ axis). At time $`t`$, the state reads $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=e^{\frac{i\omega t}{2}}\alpha |0+e^{\frac{i\omega t}{2}}\beta |1`$. Let us turn to the Bloch sphere representation of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$. The three coordinates are given by the expectation values of the Pauli matrices. As is well known, the expectation value of the spin precesses around the effective magnetic field. At $`t=2\pi /\omega `$ it has experienced a full $`2\pi `$ rotation, and a $`\pi `$ phase for the wave function. The $`\pi `$ phase has been clearly demonstrated on several systems, starting with beautiful experiment on spin $`1/2`$ neutrons RauchWerner . On general grounds, the change of global phase $`\gamma `$ under a cycle decomposes into its dynamical part, $`\gamma _d`$ (as derived from the time dependent Schrödinger equation) and its geometrical part, the Berry phase $`\gamma _g`$, whose origin relies on the Hilbert space peculiar geometry. The latter phase, $`\gamma _g`$, equals half of the area bounded by the representing part of the Bloch sphere Pancha . The dynamical phase $`\gamma _d`$ is simply related to the time average of the Hamiltonian. In the above case of one qubit precessing in a magnetic field, we have $`\gamma _d=\pi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\gamma _g=\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, so the expected global phase $`\gamma =\gamma _d+\gamma _g=\pi `$ for an initial state with $`|\alpha |=\mathrm{cos}\theta /2`$ and $`|\beta |=\mathrm{sin}\theta /2`$. Let us remark here that this $`\pi `$ phase is present even for $`\theta =0`$, where it is of pure dynamical nature (with no precession and therefore no rotation at all). We may therefore question the geometrical interpretation of the $`\pi `$ phase. It would be more correct to state that this phase has a geometrical and a dynamical component, being purely geometrical only when $`\theta =\pi /2`$, when the initial state is orthogonal to the magnetic field. However, even in that case, we find problems in relating the phase to the double connectedness of $`SO(3)`$. Indeed, the latter property relates paths on the $`SO(3)`$ manifold, stating that, under continuous deformations there are only two different classes of paths, forming a two-element $`Z_2`$ first homotopy group: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(SO(3))`$. Note that two dimensional rotations ($`SO(2)`$), have a more complicated structure: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(SO(2))=Z`$ Nash . The above experiment on a spin $`1/2`$ particle was done with a constant magnetic field and therefore a constant rotation axis. A natural question is the relation of the measured $`\pi `$ phase to topological properties of the rotation group: is the $`\pi `$ phase related to the subtle nature of $`SO(3)`$ or to a property shared by $`SO(3)`$ and its subgroup $`SO(2)`$, as it seems to be the case? In the latter case, this phase gain is therefore not directly related to the $`SO(3)`$ double connectedness, but rather to a multi connectedness property shared by both groups.

In the following we aim to develop a non ambiguous relation between the $`SO(3)`$ topology and the global phase of a wave function. The idea is rather simple: we use the one-to-one map between $`SO(3)`$ and the set of two qubit MES Mosseri:JPA2001 . A suitable set of Hamiltonians that keep constant the degree of entanglement is constructed, so that the two-qubit MES traces a path in $`SO(3)`$ when the orientation of the Hamiltonians is changed. The evolution is such that the dynamical phase vanishes while its geometrical counterpart, in a sense that will be precised, also vanishes, except at points where it abruptly changes to $`\pi `$. Note that such a $`\pi `$ phase, although not related to the $`SO(3)`$ topology, has already been discussed in the context of entangled states Geom2qubit .

A pure general bipartite state can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |00+\beta |01+\gamma |10+\delta |11,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are complex coefficients satisfying the normalization condition. The complex concurrence $`𝒞`$ of this state is defined as $`𝒞=2(\alpha \delta \beta \gamma )`$ and its norm equals the standard concurrence $`C`$ for pure 2-qubits as defined by Wooters Wooters:PRL1998 . The concurrence $`C`$ is a measure of the degree of entanglement for pure bipartite states, assuming the value $`C=1`$ for maximally entangled states and $`C=0`$ for product states. For the case of MES, state (1) can always be written (up to a global phase) in the general form Mosseri:JPA2001 :

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\alpha |00+\beta |01\beta ^{}|10+\alpha ^{}|11\right),$$
(2)
where the star denotes complex conjugation. The Hilbert space of all the MES can thus be defined as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MES}=\{(\alpha ,\beta )C^2/|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1,\mathrm{and}(\alpha ,\beta )(\alpha ,\beta )\}=S^3/Z_2=SO(3)`$, i.e., there is an one-to-one correspondance between $`SO(3)`$ and the MES. This represents a sphere (in $`4`$ d) whose opposite points are identified. By writing states in the form of Eq. (2), we can see that each MES can be denoted by a pair of complex numbers $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$.

We will now study closed trajectories in $`SO(3)`$, corresponding to the time evolution of MES subjected to precise Hamiltonians. The net result is that, depending on the homotopy classes to which the path belongs, the MES will acquire either a $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ phase. In the following we will show how this purely topological characteristics can be theoretically implemented and illustrated via an interference experiment.

Let’s take as the initial MES the Bell state $`(\alpha =1,\beta =0)`$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\left(|00+|11\right).$$
(3)
In order to implement the cyclic evolution of state (3), we will consider simple polygonal trajectories in $`SO(3)`$: A sequence of evolution operators will act for a fixed finite time interval on the states, until they reach back the initial state (3). A geometrical picture illustrating this time evolution can be given by the hypercube of $`16`$ vertices (belonging to $`S^3`$) depicted in Fig. (1). To get a discretized approximation of $`SO(3)`$ ($`=S^3/Z_2`$) we must identify opposite vertices, leaving altogether $`8`$ distinct points, from $`A`$ to $`H`$ in Fig. (1), and the edges connecting these points. They all correspond to MES. The bar over the letters denote the opposite points. Point $`A`$ is our initial state (3) and point $`\overline{A}`$ is identified to $`A`$. The first class of trajectories that will be studied starts at $`A`$ and finishes at the same point, making a circuit in the polygon defined by points $`ABFDA`$ in Fig. (1). This class will be called from now on the plus class, since it is homotopic to the identity and does not imply in a global phase change of the initial state. An example of the other class of trajectory, the minus class, is given by the sequence of points $`ABF\overline{E}\overline{A}`$. It also starts at point $`A`$ but ends at the point diametrically opposed to the initial one ($`\overline{A}`$). Thus, there is a global phase of $`\pi `$ gained by the initial state. Physically, this phase depends on the parity of the number of times the state crosses the space orthogonal to the initial one.

In order to keep the one-to-one relation between entangled states and $`SO(3)`$ elements, we will consider, in our trajectories, evolution operators leaving the complex concurrence $`𝒞`$ constant. Taking $`\mathrm{}\omega =1`$, such unitary evolutions can be realized by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{n}.\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, whith $`\stackrel{}{\widehat{\sigma }}=\widehat{\sigma }_x\stackrel{}{x}+\widehat{\sigma }_y\stackrel{}{y}+\widehat{\sigma }_z\stackrel{}{z}`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_x,\widehat{\sigma }_y`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}=n_x\stackrel{}{x}+n_y\stackrel{}{y}+n_z\stackrel{}{z}`$ is a normalized vector giving the orientation of the effective magnetic field. This Hamiltonian represents a rotation acting on only one of the qubits. The evolution operator corresponding to this Hamiltonian has the form:

$$\widehat{U}=e^{i\widehat{H}t}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{t}{2}in_z\mathrm{sin}\frac{t}{2}& in_{}\mathrm{sin}\frac{t}{2}\\ in_+\mathrm{sin}\frac{t}{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{t}{2}+in_z\mathrm{sin}\frac{t}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`n_\pm =n_x\pm in_y`$. Defining $`ϵ=e^{i\pi /4}/\sqrt{2}`$, we have, for the points appearing in the hypercube of Fig. (1):$`A(1,0)`$, $`B(ϵ,ϵ)`$, $`C(ϵ^{},ϵ^{})`$, $`D(ϵ,ϵ)`$, $`E(ϵ^{},ϵ^{})`$, $`F(i,0)`$, $`G(0,1)`$, $`H(0,i)`$. By changing the interaction time $`t`$ and the direction of rotation of our two-level system, i.e., vector $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, we are able to reach, departing from point $`A`$, all points in $`SO(3)`$, representing all possible MES. Notice that all rotations are performed on one particle only. In order to find the exact Hamiltonians that produce each class of trajectory, we will chose, for reasons that will become clear in the following, to perform the first two rotations in the first qubit and the last two in the second qubit. Thus, the total operator acting on our states can be written in the form $`\widehat{U}Id`$ for the first half of the trajectory and $`Id\widehat{U}`$ for the second one. One can easily check that in both cases the dynamical phases vanish. As for the geometrical phase, it can also be defined for open paths, as proposed by Pancharatnam Pancha . This phase also vanishes in the present case, except when the state crosses the space orthogonal to the initial state, where it abruptly changes by $`\pi `$.

The parameters in equation (4) can be easily found by comparing this matrix to the necessary rotations to implement each part of the circuits. By doing so, we find that each part of the trajectory takes a time $`t=2\pi /3`$ and the only difference in the Hamiltonians is in the direction to which $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ points. These orientations $`(n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ read:

| $`AB`$ | $`\sqrt{1/3}(1,1,1)`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`BF`$ | $`\sqrt{1/3}(1,1,1)`$ |
| $`FD`$ | $`\sqrt{1/3}(1,1,1)`$ |
| $`DA`$ | $`\sqrt{1/3}(1,1,1)`$ |
| $`F\overline{E}`$ | $`\sqrt{1/3}(1,1,1)`$ |
| $`\overline{E}\overline{A}`$ | $`\sqrt{1/3}(1,1,1)`$ |

For both classes of trajectories, the Hamiltonians coincide from $`A`$ to $`F`$, from where the vector $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ will take a different value for each class of trajectory.

We will now address the question of measuring such an effect in an interference experiment. In order to test the topological phase, one needs a setup enabling the interference of an entangled state after performing one of the trajectories above with a reference one. A simple way to do that consists of interfering entangled photon pairs, as depicted in Fig. (2). Polarization entangled photon pairs are currently produced with high fidelity and efficiency in non linear optical systems Photons . Such twin photons propagate in different space modes, which will be denoted as $`a`$ and $`b`$. Using this notation, the MES state emerging from a non linear crystal is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{1/2}\left(|H_aV_b+|V_aH_b\right)`$. Photons in modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ are detected by detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$, respectively. Before detection, photons in mode $`b`$ enter a Mach-Zender interferometer (see Fig.(2)). In the first $`50\%50\%`$ beam splitter (BS 1), mode $`b`$ is combined to mode $`c`$, which is in the vacuum state , $`|0_c`$. After that, the total state is:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(|H_aV_b0_c+i|H_a0_bV_c+|V_aH_b0_c+i|V_a0_bH_c\right),$$
(5)
which is exactly what is needed to interfere two entangled states: BS 1 produced two pairs of polarization MES, each one of them entangled to one arm of the interferometer. An experiment producing the reference fringes consists in the introduction of a variable phase factor $`e^{i\varphi }`$ in arm $`b`$ of the interferometer. Thus, before entering the recombining BS (BS 2), the state of the system is, taking into account the dephasing, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{i\varphi }|H_aV_b0_c+i|H_a0_bV_c+e^{i\varphi }|V_aH_b0_c+i|V_a0_bH_c\right)`$. The passage through BS 2 changes the state into

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((e^{i\varphi }1)(|H_aV_b0_c+i|V_aH_b0_c)+`$
$`i(e^{i\varphi }+1)(|H_a0_bV_c+|V_a0_bH_c)).`$ (6)
Coincidence detections in detector $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$ produce a counting rate $`P=1/2|(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi )|`$. The trajectories one want to implement are realized by photons in modes $`a`$ and $`c`$. The space of polarizations, described by the Poincaré sphere, is equivalent to the Bloch sphere Books . For polarizations, all rotations in the Poincaré sphere can be accomplished via wave plates properly orientated introducing a dephasing in one of the polarization axis. The most general rotation matrix can be produced by a sequence of three wave plates: the first one introducing a dephasing of $`\psi `$ in the vertical polarization axis, followed by the second one which introduces a dephasing of $`\delta `$ and makes an angle $`\theta `$ with the vertical polarization. Finally, a third plate introducing a dephasing of $`\psi `$ in the vertical polarization can be added. As a result, a rotation matrix is generated which has exactly the same form as (4) with the following correspondence: the parameter $`\delta `$ plays the role of time $`t`$, while for the components of vector $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ we have $`n_x=\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi `$, $`n_y=\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi `$ and $`n_z=\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$. We can thus introduce a set of plates acting in mode $`a`$ and performing the common part of the trajectories, i.e., from point $`A`$ to $`F`$. The remaining of the plates are put in arm $`b`$ of the interferometer and their orientation determines the topology of the trajectories. The total state, before reaching BS 2, is then $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(e^{i\varphi }|H_aV_b0_c+i(1)^n|H_a0_bV_c+e^{i\varphi }|V_aH_b0_c+i(1)^n|V_a0_bH_c)`$. The value of $`n`$ (odd or even), depends on the nature of the trajectory. After passing through BS 2, the whole state transforms into

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((e^{i\varphi }(1)^n)(|H_aV_b0_c+|V_aH_b0_c)+`$
$`i(e^{i\varphi }+(1)^n)(|H_a0_bV_c+|V_a0_bH_c)).`$ (7)
If we now make the same coincidence counts in detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$, we obtain the fringes $`P=1/2|((1)^n\mathrm{cos}\varphi )|`$. If the trajectory is of the minus class, a dephasing of one half period will be seen in the interference pattern. However, if it is of the plus type, the fringes remain at the same place. The choice of splitting the action of the rotations between the first and second qubit was made to stress the interest of using entangled states in the experiment. Since physics shall not depend on the order the detections were made, if we suppose that a detection in $`D_a`$ is made, the rest of the state can be seen as a statistical mixture of polarizations. This means that dealing with entangled polarization pairs or with a completely unpolarized beam would produce the same results in our experiment. However, the one-to-one map from photon states to $`SO(3)`$ elements is only valid for MES and it is only in that case that we can claim probing a topological property of the rotation group.

The gain of the $`\pi `$ phase factor, as mentioned before, is related to the number of times the MES crosses the space of its orthogonal states. An interesting variation of the experiment could well illustrate a different situation: one could think of trajectories which are not necessarily cyclic but, having crossed this orthogonal states space, already correspond to a gain of the $`\pi `$ phase. This would mean that the final states interfering in BS 2 will no longer be the same MES. As a consequence, there will be a decrease in the fringe visibility, but the desired dephasing would still appear.

Another interesting point to address is the case of states whose entanglement is not maximal. It can be shown that in that case, the $`\pi `$ phase also occur. However, the relation between non MES and the $`SO(3)`$ group is more complex Mosseri:JPA2001 , as well as the geometrical interpretation of their time evolution.

The authors thank M. Brune, J. M. Raimond and S. Haroche for patient listening and fruitful comments and P. H. Souto Ribeiro for discussion of the experimental aspects. Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, Université Pierre et Marie Curie and ENS, is associated with CNRS (UMR 8552).


text:
# Neutrinos and Nucleosynthesis in Supernova 1footnote 11footnote 1Presented at Proceeedings of the Mexican School of Astrophysics (EMA), Guanajuato, Mexico, July 31 - August 7, 2002. Final version to appear in the Proceedings of IX Mexican Workshop on Particles and Fields “Physics Beyond the Standard Model”, Colima Col. México, November 17-22, 2003.

## I Nucleosynthesis in Supernova

A star lives a luminous life by burning $`H`$ into successively heavier elements. However, as the Fe group nuclei near mass number $`A=56`$ are most tightly bound, no more nuclear binding energy can be released to power the star by burning Fe. Therefore, heavy elements beyond Fe have to be made by process other than normal stellar burning. One such process is the rapid neutron capture process, or the r-process.

One starts with some nuclei and lots of neutrons, the nuclei rapidly capture these neutrons to make very neutron-rich unstable progenitor nuclei. After neutron capture stops, the progenitor nuclei successively beta-decay towards stability and become the r-process nuclei observed in nature. This process is responsible for approximately half the natural abundance of nuclei with mass number $`A>100`$ Quian .

There is as yet no consensus for the site or sites of r-process nucleosynthesis. The high neutron densities $`10^{20}`$ $`cm^3`$ and temperatures of $`10^9`$ K associated with r-process suggest astrophysical sites as core-collapse type II or Ib supernovae. The most plausible environment yet proposed is the neutrino-heated ejecta from the nascent neutron star. Close to the neutron star, the temperature is several Mev and the atmosphere is essentially dissociated into neutrons and protons. As the neutrinos emitted by the neutron star free-stream through this atmosphere, some of the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ are captured by the nucleons and their energy is deposited in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is heated and, as a result, it expands away from the neutron star and eventually develops into a mass outflow, a neutrino-driven wind Caldwell . After the shock wave has propagated out to several hundred kilometers, condition behind the shock at 100 to 200 km are suitable for neutrino heating. The neutrino heating blows a hot bubble above the proton-neutron star.

## II Neutrino-Nucleon Interaction

Neutrinos and antineutrinos of all three flavors are emitted by the neutron star producided in a supernova. The individual neutrino species has approximately the same luminosity but very diferent average energy. As the neutrinos diffuse out of the neutron star, they thermally decouple from the neutron star matter at different radii due to the diference in their ability to exchange energy with such matter. Neutrinos species of all flavors have identical neutral current interactions but, due to energy threshold effects, the $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$, and their antiparticles lack the charged current capture reactions analogous to

$`\nu _e+np+e`$ (1)
$`n+e^+p+\overline{\nu }_e.`$ (2)
The result is that $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\nu _\mu `$, and their antiparticles, have indentical spectra and decouple at a higher density, and thus temperature, than the electron neutrinos and antineutrinos Nunokawa1 .

We require the neutron-to-nuclei ratio $`R>100`$ to effect a good r-process yield for heavy nuclear species, but the models with conventional equations of state for nuclear matter all give smaller values of $`R`$. In all models $`R`$ is determined by the net neutron-proton ratio; the entropy-per-baryon in the ejecta, $`s`$; and the dynamic expansion time scale, $`t_{dyn}`$ . The neutron-to-proton ratio is $`n/p=Y_e^11`$, where $`Y_e`$ is the number of electrons per baryon. The r-process is only possible when $`Y_e<0.5`$ at freeze-out from nuclear statistical equilibrium. The value of $`Y_e`$ in the region above the neutrinosphere is determined by the interactions in Eq. (1) and (2). We can write the rate of change of $`Y_e`$ with time as

$$\frac{dY_e}{dt}=\lambda _1\lambda _2Y_e,$$
(3)
where $`\lambda _1=\lambda _{n\nu _e}+\lambda _{e^+n}`$ and $`\lambda _2=\lambda _1+\lambda _{n\overline{\nu _e}}+\lambda _{ep}`$, are the rates in (1) and (2), (see RefNunokawa2 ).

## III Electron Fraction

The general solution to the above equation is given by

$$Y_e=\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _2}_0^tI(t,t^{^{}})\left[\frac{d}{dt^{^{}}}\left(\frac{\lambda _1(t^{^{}})}{\lambda _2(t^{^{}})}\right)\right]𝑑t^{^{}},$$
(4)
with the integrating factor given by

$$I(t,t^{^{}})=Exp(_t^{^{}}^t\lambda _2(t{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime })dt{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime })$$
(5)
and $`\lambda _1/\lambda _2Y_{eq}`$. The functional form for the weak-interaction rates are given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{\nu n}=\frac{BL_\nu }{r^2<E_\nu >}\\ \times \frac{1}{T_\nu ^3F_2(0)}_0^{\mathrm{}}(1f_e)E_e^2Pf_\nu 𝑑E_\nu ,\end{array}$$
(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{\overline{\nu }p}=\frac{BL_{\overline{\nu }}}{r^2<E_{\overline{\nu }}>}\\ \times \frac{1}{T_{\overline{\nu }}^3F_2(0)}_{\mathrm{\Delta }m}^{\mathrm{}}(1f_e)E_e^2\overline{P}f_{\overline{\nu }}𝑑E_{\overline{\nu }},\end{array}$$
(7)
$$\lambda _{e^{}p}=A_{\mathrm{\Delta }m}^{\mathrm{}}(1Pf_\nu )E_\nu ^2f_e^{}𝑑E_e^{},$$
(8)
$$\lambda _{e^+n}=A_0^{\mathrm{}}(1\overline{P}f_{\overline{\nu }})E_{\overline{\nu }}^2f_{e^+}𝑑E_{e^+},$$
(9)
where $`B=9.6\times 10^{44}cm^2/MeV^2`$, $`L_\nu =1\times 10^{51}erg/seg`$ and $`L_{\overline{\nu }}=1.3\times 10^{51}erg/seg`$ are the neutrino luminosity, $`<E_\nu >=3.15T_\nu `$, $`F_2(0)=1.8`$, $`f=E^2/(e^{E/T}+1)`$ is the distribution function of the neutrinos or electrons and positrons. $`(1f_e)`$ and $`(1f_\nu )`$ are the Pauli blocking factor and $`r`$ is evaluated in $`10km.`$ and $`A=\frac{G_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\pi ^3}(g_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+3g_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$. $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant, and $`P`$ ($`Q`$) is a factor of survival probability ($`<1`$) for neutrinos (antineutrinos). In this work, we assume the energy spectrum of each neutrino species, electron and positron is approximated by a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, following Bernstein Bernstein  and Enqvist Enqvist .

We changed to the variable $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }m/T`$ and the solution is function of the temperature, the integrating factor now becomes

$$I(y,y^{^{}})=Exp(_y^{^{}}^y\left[\frac{dt^{^{\prime \prime }}}{dy^{^{\prime \prime }}}\right]\lambda _2(y{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime })dy{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }).$$
(10)
To evaluate the integrating factor we assume the neutrino-driven wind model, the radius of an outflowing mass element is related to time $`t`$ by $`r=r_oexp\left\{(tt_o)/t_{dyn}\right\}`$ this implies an outflow velocity proporcional to the radius, $`v=r/t_{dyn}`$ Meyer . In the model, $`\rho \alpha r^3`$ and $`T\alpha r^1`$. We set $`T_n=T_p=T_e=T_{e^+}=T`$, but we assume that the neutrino and antineutrino temperatures remain nearly constant. We finally compute the integrals in the solution for a range of $`y`$ values, we obtain the curve for $`Y_e(y)`$ and $`P`$. Numerical supernova neutrino transport calculations show that $`T_{\overline{\nu }_e}=5.1`$ Mev, $`T_{\nu _e}=4.5`$ Mev and we set for $`\tau _{dyn}=0.3`$ s. Neutrino oscillations add a new complication to the diagnostic of supernova neutrinos, the factor $`P`$ will be the survival probability of the electron neutrinos and antineutrinos.

## IV Conclusions

In Figures (a) and (b) show that difference betwenn $`Ye`$ (doted line) and $`Yeq`$ (solid line) is very little. That is, the integral in the equation (4) not contribute significantly to $`Ye`$. Canculations made for $`\tau _{dyn}`$ between $`0.01s`$ and $`1s`$ confirm the last.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigaci n e Inovaci n Tecnol gica (PAPIIT) de la DGAPA-UNAM No. de Proyecto: IN109001 and in part by CONACYT under proyect No I37307-E.


text:
# The heat kernel expansion for the electromagnetic field in a cavity

## 1 Introduction

The modes of an electromagnetic field in a cavity, taken together with their unphysical, longitudinal counterparts, can be mapped onto the eigenstates of the Laplacian acting on the de Rham complex of a 3-manifold with boundary. The electric and magnetic fields are thereby associated to forms of degree $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$ respectively. In this correspondence transverse modes are associated with coexact, resp. exact forms, which permits to further map longitudinal modes to forms of degree $`p=0`$ and $`p=3`$. We will use this observation, which is explained in detail in Sect. 2 below, to compute the first six coefficients of the heat kernel expansion for the electromagnetic field in a cavity. The result is used to show in a simple way that the Casimir energy in an arbitrary cavity with smooth boundaries is finite, a conclusion which has been reached previously . In an appendix the derivation of the numerical coefficients of the expansion is presented.

We shall present a Hilbert space formulation of the classical Maxwell equations in a cavity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$. In a preliminary Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)`$ we define the dense subspaces

$``$ $`=`$ $`\{\text{V}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\text{rot }\text{V}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\},`$
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\{\text{V}\text{U},\text{rot }\text{V}=\text{rot }\text{U},\text{V},\text{U}\}`$
and the (closed) operator

$$R=\text{rot }\text{with domain}𝒟(R)=_0.$$

Its adjoint is then given as $`R^{}=\text{rot }`$ with $`𝒟(R^{})=`$. We remark that $`R`$, resp. $`R^{}`$, is also the closure of rot  defined on smooth vector fields V with boundary condition $`\text{V}_{}=0`$ on the smooth boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, resp. without boundary conditions. This is what is meant when we later simply say that a differential operator is defined with (or without) a certain boundary condition.

The subspace

$$=\{\text{V}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\text{div }\text{V}=0\}$$
(1)
and its orthogonal complement in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)`$ are preserved by $`R`$ and, therefore, by $`R^{}`$. We will thus view them as operators on the physical Hilbert space $``$. The Maxwell equations with boundary condition $`\text{E}_{}=0`$ on the ideally conducting shell $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can now be written as

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{}{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}\text{E}\hfill \\ \text{B}\hfill \end{array}\right)=M\left(\begin{array}{c}\text{E}\hfill \\ \text{B}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(2)
with

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{i}R^{}\\ \mathrm{i}R& 0\end{array}\right)=M^{}\text{ on },$$

cf. . Since no boundary condition has been imposed on B, we have $`M(0,\text{B})=0`$ for all $`\text{B}=\psi `$ with $`\psi `$ harmonic, and hence

$$\text{dim }\text{Ker }M=\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
We shall compute the heat kernel trace

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}(\mathrm{e}^{tM^2})=\underset{k}{^{}}\mathrm{e}^{t\omega _k^2},$$

where  means that the contributions of zero-modes, i.e., of eigenvalues $`\omega _k=0`$ of $`M`$, have been omitted. This is necessary in view of (3), but a more physical justification, tied to the application to the Casimir effect to be discussed later, is that zero-modes are not subject to quantization.

The square of $`M`$ is

$$M^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R^{}R& 0\\ 0& RR^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}`$, resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}`$, is the Laplacian on $``$ with boundary conditions

$$\text{E}_{}=0,\text{resp.}(\text{rot }\text{B})_{}=0.$$
(5)
The operators $`RR^{}`$ and $`R^{}R`$ have the same spectrum, including multiplicity, except for zero-modes. Incidentally, we note that eigenfunctions $`(\text{E},\text{B})`$ corresponding to $`\omega _k0`$ satisfy $`\text{B}=\mathrm{i}\omega _k^1\text{rot }\text{E}`$ and hence, by Stokes’ theorem, the boundary condition $`\text{B}_{}=0`$, which we did not impose, but which is usually also associated with ideally conducting shells. Since $`_t^2+M^2=(\mathrm{i}_tM)(\mathrm{i}_tM)`$, each pair of non-zero eigenvalues of $`R^{}R`$ and $`RR^{}`$ corresponds to a single oscillator mode for (2). We will thus discuss the heat kernel asymptotics for

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}(\mathrm{e}^{tM^2})=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}}`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}(\mathrm{e}^{tM^2})=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}}`$ (7)
$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nt^{\frac{n3}{2}},(t0).$$
(8)
The coefficients $`a_n`$ are known, see e.g. , for general operators of Laplace type. The direct application of such results is prevented by the divergence constraint in $``$, see (1). In the next section we indicate how to remove it. First however we present the main result.

Let

$$L_{ab}=(_{\text{e}_a}\text{e}_b,\text{n}),(a,b=1,2),$$

be the second fundamental form on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with inward normal n and local orthonormal frame $`\{\text{e}_1,\text{e}_2,\text{n}\}`$. We denote by $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ the volume of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and set

$$f[\mathrm{\Omega }]=_\mathrm{\Omega }f(y)dy,$$

where $`\mathrm{d}y`$ is the (induced) Euclidean surface element on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The corresponding Laplacian on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is denoted by $`^2`$.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ be a compact, connected domain with smooth boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consisting of $`n`$ components of genera $`g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_n`$. Then

$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`2(4\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}|\mathrm{\Omega }|,`$
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(4\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathrm{tr}L)[\mathrm{\Omega }],`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}(4\pi )^1\left(3(\mathrm{tr}L)^24detL\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(1+g_i)+1,`$ (9)
$`a_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{315}}(4\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(2(\mathrm{tr}L)^39\mathrm{tr}LdetL\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }],`$
$`a_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{122880}}(4\pi )^1(2295(\mathrm{tr}L)^412440(\mathrm{tr}L)^2detL+`$
$`+13424(detL)^2+1200\mathrm{tr}L^2\mathrm{tr}L)[\mathrm{\Omega }].`$
We will give two partially independent proofs, based on (6), resp. (7). Their agreement is related to the index theorem, as it may be seen from (4). A further, partial check of these coefficients has been made on the basis of general cylindrical domains and of the sphere, where a separation into TE and TM modes is possible.

The coefficient $`a_0`$ was computed in  (except for the factor $`2`$ replaced by $`3`$, as the divergence condition (1) was ignored), $`a_1,a_2`$ in . The coefficient $`a_3`$ is closely related to a result of , as discussed in Sect. 3.

## 2 Proofs

We consider the space of (square integrable) forms, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })=_{p=0}^n\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, on the manifold $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with boundary, together with the exterior derivative $`d_{p+1}:\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p+1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ defined with relative boundary condition (, Sect. 2.7.1)

$$\omega |_\mathrm{\Omega }=0,$$

as a form $`\omega |_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. For later use we recall that by the de Rahm theorem for manifolds with boundary ( or , Thm. 2.7.3) we have

$$H_r^p(\mathrm{\Omega })H_{np}(\mathrm{\Omega })H_p(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(10)
where $`H_r^p(\mathrm{\Omega })=\text{Ker }d_{p+1}/\text{Im }d_p`$ is the $`p`$-th relative cohomology group, $`H_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the $`p`$-th homology group, and $`H_p(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the $`p`$-th relative homology group, i.e., the homology based on chains mod $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We shall henceforth restrict to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ as in Theorem 1. Using either homology (10), the dimension of $`H_r^p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is seen to be

$`0`$ $`(p=0),`$ (11)
$`n1`$ $`(p=1),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}g_i`$ $`(p=2),`$
$`1`$ $`(p=3).`$
These are also the dimensions of the spaces of harmonic $`p`$-forms.

The space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })=_{p=0}^3\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ may be identified as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })=L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })(\varphi ,\text{E},\text{B},\psi ),$$

where $`d:\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ acts as

$$d:L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{\text{grad}}{}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\underset{\text{rot}}{}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\underset{\text{div}}{}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })0$$

with boundary conditions $`\varphi =0,\text{E}_{}=0,\text{B}_{}=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then
$$d^{}:0L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{\text{div}}{}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\underset{\text{rot}}{}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\underset{\text{grad}}{}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

without any boundary conditions. The Laplace-Beltrami operator on forms,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{p=0}{\overset{3}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_p)=dd^{}+d^{}d,$$

is seen to correspond to the Euclidean Laplacian with boundary conditions

$`\varphi =0`$ $`(p=0),`$ (12)
$`\text{E}_{}=0,\text{div }\text{E}=0`$ $`(p=1),`$
$`\text{B}_{}=0,(\text{rot }\text{B})_{}=0`$ $`(p=2),`$
$`(\text{grad }\psi )_{}=0`$ $`(p=3).`$
Each of the four problems admits a heat kernel expansion,

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_p(\mathrm{\Omega })}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_pt}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n^{(p)}t^{\frac{n3}{2}},$$
(13)
whose coefficients have been computed ($`n=0,\mathrm{},3`$)  or can be computed using existing results ($`n=4,5`$) . To this end we note that the boundary conditions for $`p=1,2`$ can be formulated equivalently as

$`\text{E}_{}=0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{E}_{}}{n}}(\mathrm{tr}L)\text{E}_{}=0`$ $`(p=1),`$ (14)
$`\text{B}_{}=0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{B}_{}}{n}}L\text{B}_{}=0`$ $`(p=2).`$
First approach. We will compute (6). We observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}`$ is just the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ to its invariant subspace

$$=\{\text{E}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\text{div }\text{E}=0\}=\text{Ker }d_1^{}.$$

Hence

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}}=\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{Tr}_{^{}}^{}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_1},$$

where the orthogonal complement of $``$ in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)`$ is

$$^{}=\overline{\text{Ran }d_1}=\text{Ran }d_1=\{\varphi L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\varphi =0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Omega }\},$$

($`\text{Ran }d`$ is closed by the Hodge decomposition, see e.g. ). By $`d\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }d`$, the operators $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_1)_{^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ have the same spectrum (in fact $`\varphi =0`$ implies $`\varphi =0`$ by the boundary condition). Thus, using also (11), we find

$`\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}}`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_0}`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_1}\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_0}(n1),`$
i.e.,
$`a_k`$ $`=a_k^{(1)}a_k^{(0)},(k3),`$
$`a_3`$ $`=a_3^{(1)}a_3^{(0)}n+1.`$
These relations, together with the values of $`a_k^{(p)}`$ computed in the Appendix, yield the values of the coefficients stated in the Theorem 1. In particular, we will obtain

$$a_3^{(1)}a_3^{(0)}=\frac{1}{64}(4\pi )^1\left(3(\mathrm{tr}L)^2+28detL\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }].$$

This matches the stated value of $`a_3`$ because of

$$n=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+g_i)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1g_i)$$

and of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem,

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1g_i)=\frac{1}{2}(4\pi )^1(detL)[\mathrm{\Omega }].$$
(15)
Second approach. We now compute (7). As has been noted in the Introduction, eigenmodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}`$, except for zero-modes, satisfy the boundary condition$`\text{B}_{}=0`$, and are thus eigenmodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ belonging to its invariant subspace $``$, cf. (5, 12). The converse is obvious. We conclude that

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}}=\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_2}\mathrm{Tr}_{^{}}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_2}.$$

Since

$$=\{\text{B}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\text{div }\text{B}=0\}=\text{Ker }d_3,$$

we have

$$^{}=\overline{\text{Ran }d_3^{}}=\text{Ran }d_3^{}=\{\psi L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)\psi L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\}.$$

Using $`d^{}\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }d^{}`$, we see that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)_{^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ have the same spectrum, except for a single zero-mode (in fact, $`\psi =0`$ implies $`\psi =\mathrm{const}`$). We thus find, using (11),

$`\mathrm{Tr}_{}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}}`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_2}\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^{}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_3}`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },^3)}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_2}\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\mathrm{e}^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_3}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}g_i1\right),`$
i.e.,
$`a_k`$ $`=a_k^{(2)}a_k^{(3)},(k3),`$
$`a_3`$ $`=a_3^{(2)}a_3^{(3)}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}g_i+1.`$
From these relations and from the results of the Appendix we again recover Theorem 1. In particular,

$$a_3^{(2)}a_3^{(3)}=\frac{1}{64}(4\pi )^1\left(3(\mathrm{tr}L)^236detL\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }]$$

leads to the claim for $`a_3`$, because of

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+g_i)\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1g_i)$$

and of (15).

## 3 Application to the Casimir effect

For the purpose of this discussion we simply define the Casimir energy by the mode summation method, see e.g. . In particular, we do not address the issue  of whether it is the most appropriate physically. We shall however observe that the Casimir energy is finite – a conclusion obtained in , but questioned in .

Consider the cavity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ enclosed in a large ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. As usual we compare the vacuum energy of the electromagnetic field in the domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ with that of the reference domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Each eigenmode of either domain contributes a zero-point energy $`\omega _k/2`$, resp. $`\omega _k^0/2`$. As a regulator for the eigenfrequencies $`\omega _k=\lambda _k^{1/2}`$, we choose $`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma \lambda _k}`$, ($`\gamma >0`$). The corresponding definition of the Casimir energy is

$$E_C=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\gamma 0}{lim}\left(\underset{k}{}\lambda _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\gamma \lambda _k}\underset{k}{}(\lambda _k^0)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\gamma \lambda _k^0}\right).$$

We shall prove that the limit $`\gamma 0`$ is finite. It will also be clear that the subsequent limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{}`$ exists, though we shall not make the effort to prove that (see however e.g. , Section 12.7 for the necessary tools). Using

$$\lambda _k^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}dtt^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{e}^{t\lambda _k}$$

and (8) we find for the regularized sum of the eigenfrequencies

$$\underset{k}{}\lambda _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\gamma \lambda _k}\underset{n=0}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{n3}{2\sqrt{\pi }}a_n_0^\delta dtt^{\frac{1}{2}}(t+\gamma )^{\frac{n5}{2}}$$

as $`\gamma 0`$. Here $`\delta >0`$ is arbitrary, but fixed, and “$``$” means up to terms $`O(1)`$. Using

$$_0^\delta dtt^{\frac{1}{2}}(t+\gamma )^{\frac{n5}{2}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4}{3}\gamma ^2\hfill & (n=0),\hfill \\ \frac{\pi }{2}\gamma ^{\frac{3}{2}}\hfill & (n=1),\hfill \\ 2\gamma ^1\hfill & (n=2),\hfill \\ \pi \gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill & (n=3),\hfill \\ \mathrm{log}\gamma \hfill & (n=4),\hfill \end{array}$$

we find

$$\underset{k}{}\lambda _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\gamma \lambda _k}\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}a_0\gamma ^2+\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}a_1\gamma ^{\frac{3}{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}a_2\gamma ^1+0a_3\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}a_4\mathrm{log}\gamma .$$

Hence a finite Casimir energy requires (cf. ) that $`a_0,a_1,a_2,a_4`$ (but not necessarily $`a_3`$!) agree for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ and for the reference domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. This is indeed so for $`a_0=2(4\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}|\mathrm{\Omega }_0|`$ and for $`a_1=0`$, but also for $`a_2,a_4`$ as the contribution from the two sides of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cancel. The same conclusion is obtained if the regulator $`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma \lambda _k}`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{e}^{(\gamma \lambda _k)^{1/2}}`$ (see , Eq. (27)):

$$\underset{k}{}\lambda _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{(\gamma \lambda _k)^{1/2}}\frac{24}{\sqrt{\pi }}a_0\gamma ^2+4a_1\gamma ^{\frac{3}{2}}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}a_2\gamma ^1+0a_3\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}a_4\mathrm{log}\gamma .$$

Since no renormalization is necessary, the value of $`E_C`$ agrees with that obtained by means of the zeta function.

In the rest of this section we compare our results with those of . To the extent the comparison is done we will find agreement. An important tool there is the mode generating function, Eq. (4.5) in ,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }(k)& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}k^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}k^2}\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{k^2}{2}\mathrm{Tr}^{}\left((\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}k^2)^1+(\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}k^2)^1\right),(k),\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where “$``$” means equality “within addition of some polynomial in $`k^2`$”. Since the resolvents in (16) are not trace class, but their squares are, we first consider that replacement. Using $`(A+\mu )^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}dtt\mathrm{e}^{t(A+\mu )}`$ we obtain, as $`\mu \mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}^{}\left((\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}+\mu )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}+\mu )^2\right)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n_0^{\mathrm{}}dtt^{\frac{n3}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{t\mu }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+1}{2})a_n\mu ^{\frac{n+1}{2}}$$

with coefficients $`a_n`$ given in Theorem 1. Integrating w.r.t. $`\mu `$ we find

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}^{}\left((\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{E}+\mu )^1+(\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{B}+\mu )^1\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}n=0\\ n1\end{array}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n1}{2})a_n\mu ^{\frac{n1}{2}}a_1\mathrm{log}\mu $$

and hence, with $`\mu ^{1/2}=\mathrm{i}k`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(k)2\sqrt{\pi }a_0\mathrm{i}k^3\sqrt{\pi }a_1k^2\mathrm{ln}(k^2)+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }a_2ka_3+O(k^1).$$

Upon insertion of the mentioned values for $`a_0,\mathrm{},a_3`$ this agrees with Eq. (4.40) in , except for $`a_3`$ which is there replaced by its local part, see (9),

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_3=\frac{1}{64}(4\pi )^1\left(3(\mathrm{tr}L)^24detL\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }]=\frac{1}{64}_\mathrm{\Omega }d\sigma \left(\frac{3}{4}(\kappa _1^2+\kappa _2^2)\kappa _1\kappa _2\right),$$

where $`\kappa _1,\kappa _2`$ are the principal curvatures. Note however that this discrepancy is implicit in the definition of “$``$”. It is resolved in  by first considering $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(k)`$, i.e., the difference of the mode generating functions corresponding to the configurations $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Thus

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(k)=2\stackrel{~}{a}_3+O(k^1),$$

since the contributions to $`a_0,a_2`$ cancel, and those to $`\stackrel{~}{a}_3`$ double the value. Not ambiguous then is “the number of additional modes of finite frequency created by introducing the conducting surface $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$”:

$$𝒞=\psi (0+)\psi (\mathrm{}),$$

where $`\psi (y)=\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{i}y)`$. For a connected boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of genus $`g`$ the value of $`\psi (0+)`$ has been established as $`\psi (0+)=g`$ (see , Eq. (5.8)), resulting in

$$𝒞=2\stackrel{~}{a}_3g.$$
(17)
This result agrees with Theorem 1: the non-local terms in (9) take the values $`\frac{1}{2}(g1),\frac{1}{2}g,\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ respectively. Thus,

$$\delta a_3=2\stackrel{~}{a}_3g,$$

in agreement with (17).

## Appendix A Appendix

In this appendix we compute the heat kernel coefficients in (13) for $`p=0,\mathrm{},3`$ and $`n=0,\mathrm{},5`$ on the basis of Theorems 1 and 4 in . We use the same notation, together with $`P=\text{n}\text{n}`$ denoting the normal projection at the boundary. The vector bundle is $`V=\mathrm{\Omega }\times `$ for $`p=0,3`$, resp. $`V=T\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`p=1,2`$, equipped with the Euclidean connection. The decompositions of $`V|_\mathrm{\Omega }=V_NV_D(\varphi ^N,\varphi ^D)`$ (with projections $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$, resp. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$) and boundary conditions $`\varphi _{;n}^N+S\varphi ^N=0`$, resp. $`\varphi ^D=0`$, are specified as follows, cf. (14) and :

$`p`$ $`=0:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }_+=0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{}=1,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (18)
$`p`$ $`=1:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }_+=P,S=L_{aa}P,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{}=1P,\hfill & \end{array}`$
$`p`$ $`=2:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }_+=1P,S=L,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{}=P,\hfill & \end{array}`$
$`p`$ $`=3:`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }_+=1,S=0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{}=0.\hfill & \end{array}`$
The result is

$`a_0^{(p)}`$ $`=(4\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}c_0^{(p)}|\mathrm{\Omega }|,`$
$`a_1^{(p)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(4\pi )^1c_1^{(p)}|\mathrm{\Omega }|,`$
$`a_2^{(p)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}c_2^{(p)}(\mathrm{tr}L)[\mathrm{\Omega }],`$
$`a_3^{(p)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{384}}(4\pi )^1\left(c_{31}^{(p)}(\mathrm{tr}L)^2+c_{32}^{(p)}(detL)\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }],`$
$`a_4^{(p)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{315}}(4\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(c_{41}^{(p)}(\mathrm{tr}L)^3+c_{42}^{(p)}\mathrm{tr}LdetL\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }],`$
$`a_5^{(p)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{245760}}(4\pi )^1\left(c_{51}^{(p)}(\mathrm{tr}L)^4+c_{52}^{(p)}(\mathrm{tr}L)^2detL+c_{53}^{(p)}(detL)^2+c_{54}^{(p)}\mathrm{tr}L^2\mathrm{tr}L\right)[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$
with coefficients given by

|  | $`p=0`$ | $`p=1`$ | $`p=2`$ | $`p=3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`c_0^{(p)}`$ | $`1`$ | $`3`$ | $`3`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`c_1^{(p)}`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`c_2^{(p)}`$ | $`1`$ | $`3`$ | $`3`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`c_{31}^{(p)}`$ | $`3`$ | $`21`$ | $`33`$ | $`15`$ |
| $`c_{32}^{(p)}`$ | $`20`$ | $`148`$ | $`220`$ | $`4`$ |
| $`c_{41}^{(p)}`$ | $`4`$ | $`36`$ | $`60`$ | $`28`$ |
| $`c_{42}^{(p)}`$ | $`18`$ | $`162`$ | $`186`$ | $`42`$ |
| $`c_{51}^{(p)}`$ | $`555`$ | $`5145`$ | $`8625`$ | $`4035`$ |
| $`c_{52}^{(p)}`$ | $`2840`$ | $`27720`$ | $`35720`$ | $`10840`$ |
| $`c_{53}^{(p)}`$ | $`2224`$ | $`29072`$ | $`29712`$ | $`2864`$ |
| $`c_{54}^{(p)}`$ | $`120`$ | $`2520`$ | $`4680`$ | $`2280`$ |

These values imply Theorem 1, as explained in its proof.

The computation of the table is based on the general result of , which has been applied to (18) using the following identities:

$`\mathrm{Tr}(P_{:a}P_{:b})`$ $`=2(L^2)_{ab},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(P_{:a}P_{:a}P_{:b}P_{:b})`$ $`=(L^4)_{aa}+(L^2)_{aa}(L^2)_{bb},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(P_{:a}P_{:b}P_{:a}P_{:b})`$ $`=2(L^4)_{aa},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(P_{:aa}P_{:bb})`$ $`=2L_{ac:a}L_{bc:b}+4(L^4)_{aa}+4(L^2)_{aa}(L^2)_{bb},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(P_{:ab}P_{:ab})`$ $`=2L_{ab:c}L_{ab:c}+6(L^4)_{aa}+2(L^2)_{aa}(L^2)_{bb}.`$
They can be derived by using $`_{\text{e}_a}\text{n}=L_{ab}\text{e}_b`$, so that

$$P_{:a}=L_{ac}(\text{e}_c\text{n}+\text{n}\text{e}_c),$$

and by assuming without loss that $`_{\text{e}_a}\text{e}_b`$ has no component parallel to $`T_p\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the point $`p`$ of evaluation, i.e., $`_{\text{e}_a}\text{e}_b=L_{ab}\text{n}`$. Then

$$P_{:ab}=L_{ac:b}(\text{e}_c\text{n}+\text{n}\text{e}_c)2(L^2)_{ab}P+(L_{ac}L_{bd}+L_{ad}L_{bc})\text{e}_c\text{e}_d,$$

from which the above traces follow. In turn they allow the computation of similar traces with $`P`$ replaced by $`\chi =\mathrm{\Pi }_+\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$, i.e., by $`\chi =\pm (2P1)`$ in the cases $`p=1,2`$. In these two cases we also have

$`\mathrm{Tr}S_{:a}`$ $`=L_{bb:a},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}S_{:ab}`$ $`=L_{cc:ab},`$
and, moreover, for $`p=1`$,

$`\mathrm{Tr}(S_{:a}S_{:a})`$ $`=L_{bb:a}L_{cc:a}+2L_{bb}L_{cc}(L^2)_{aa},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(P_{:a}S_{:b})`$ $`=2(L^2)_{ab}L_{cc},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(PS_{:a}S_{:a})`$ $`=L_{bb:a}L_{cc:a}+L_{bb}L_{cc}(L^2)_{aa},`$
resp. for $`p=2`$,

$`\mathrm{Tr}(S_{:a}S_{:a})`$ $`=L_{ab:c}L_{ab:c}+2(L^4)_{aa},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(P_{:a}S_{:a})`$ $`=2(L^3)_{aa},`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}(PS_{:a}S_{:a})`$ $`=(L^4)_{aa}.`$
Furthermore, traces of $`L^k`$, $`(k2)`$, were reduced to $`\mathrm{tr}L,detL`$ by means of $`L^2(\mathrm{tr}L)L+detL=0`$. Finally, we used the Codazzi equation, $`L_{ab:c}=L_{ac:b}`$, as well as

$$L_{ab:ca}L_{ab:ac}=L_{aa}(L^2)_{bc}(L^2)_{aa}L_{bc},$$

which follows from the Gauss equation.

Acknowledgement. We thank M. Levitin and G. Scharf for discussions. The research of D. Hasler was supported in part under the EU-network contract HPRN-CT-2002-00277.