text:
# Renormalization group for the probability distribution of magnetic impurities in a random-field ϕ⁴ model

## I Introduction

The random-field Ising model (RFIM) is the Ising model coupled to a random magnetic fieldim . Although it has been extensively studied for about three decades, there remain many unresolved problemsn , one of which concerns dimensional reductionaim .

Dimensional reduction claims that the critical behavior of the $`d`$ dimensional RFIM is equivalent to the $`d2`$ dimensional pure Ising model. Following this argument, phase transition does not occur in the three-dimensional RFIM. However, it is rigorously proved that the phase transition does occur in this model, so that dimensional reduction does not hold at least $`d=3`$i . Various numerical computations are performed to obtain critical exponents in three dimensionsr ; nb ; hy ; mf . On the other hand, it is not understood whether dimensional reduction works in other dimensions lower than the upper critical dimension, which is believed to be six.

Since standard perturbation for the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory of the RFIM simply leads to the result consistent with dimensional reduction, other approaches were applied. Schwartz et al proposed modification of dimensional reduction, which indicates correspondence between the $`d`$ dimensional RFIM and the pure Ising model in $`d^{}=d2\eta (d^{})`$ s . Mezard and Young suggested the replica symmetry breaking of the RFIM by extrapolation from $`1/m`$ expansion, where $`m`$ is the components of the spinmy . Lancaster et al computed exponents, paying attention to many solutions of mean field equationslmp . Although these works support the breakdown of dimensional reduction in other dimensions, it has not yet been settled.

The breakdown of standard perturbation may be caused by overlooked relevant operators. In $`4+ϵ`$ dimensions, Fisherf  and Feldmanfe  pointed out that there are infinitely many relevant operators in $`n`$-component random spin models. Near the upper critical dimension, Brézin and de Dominicis investigated that the GL Hamiltonian corresponding to the RFIM has not only the usual $`\varphi ^4`$ interaction 111 A similar Hamiltonian is also employed in Ref.hks  for the high-temperature expansion of the RFIM

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\varphi _\alpha ^4,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ denotes the replica index, but also the following extra $`\varphi ^4`$ interactionsbd :

$$\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\varphi _\alpha ^3\varphi _\beta ,\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\varphi _\alpha ^2\varphi _\beta ^2,\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma }{}\varphi _\alpha ^2\varphi _\beta \varphi _\gamma ,\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi _\gamma \varphi _\delta .$$
(2)
It means that the space of the coupling constants extends to the five dimensions and that a renormalization-group (RG) trajectory should be considered in five-dimensional space. They claimed that dimensional reduction does not work even near the upper critical dimension since the non-trivial fixed point of $`\mathrm{O}(ϵ)`$ becomes unstable in $`d=6ϵ`$.

However, their analysis has ambiguity that originates from the zero-replica limit. In fact, they proposed two different limiting procedures and derived two sets of beta functions quantitatively different each other.

In this paper, we circumvent the ambiguity and reconsider RG flow in the extended coupling-constant space. To this end, we use RG for the random probability distribution that controls random potentials including the magnetic field. This method was initiated by Harris and Lubenskyhl ; l ; m  in order to investigate a randomly diluted magnetic system with non-magnetic impurities. In this case, it is confirmed that the replica method is consistent with the Harris-Lubensky methodl ; gl . Here we extend the random probability distribution adopted in the previous literaturesim ; aim ; g . It corresponds to taking into account the replica interactions (2) as well as (1).

According to Refs.hl ; l , the coupling constants in the Hamiltonian are extended to inhomogeneous random potentials that are correlated to each other following some random probability distribution $`P`$. After performing standard RG in the inhomogeneous potentials, the change of the Hamiltonian can be pushed into transformation of $`P`$. Distribution $`P`$ is characterized by non-trivial cumulants with some parameters. Therefore the change of $`P`$ defines RG flow in that parameter space. We can investigate critical behavior from RG flow. An advantage of this method compared to the replica method is that any ambiguities originating from limiting procedures do not arise.

This paper is organized as follows: we show in the next section the RG for probability distribution of the Gaussian random magnetic impurities. We can naturally introduce five parameters that completely correspond to the five coupling constants for the interactions (1) and (2) in the replica Hamiltonian. In Sec. III, we analyze the RG by perturbation and derive the recursion equations of the parameters that specify random-field distribution. We also compare the result with that of the replica methodbd . In Sec. IV, we introduce expansion parameters of physical quantities that are convenient for analysis near the upper critical dimension. In the language of the replica method, it means to determine the scaling dimensions of the operators in (1) and (2). We show that the interaction (1) is the unique relevant operator near the upper critical dimension in all the $`\varphi ^4`$ interactions. Then arguments of dimensional reduction can survive near the upper critical dimension. However, as the dimensions are lowered, other interactions can become relevant, which cause the breakdown of the dimensional reduction. This picture is consistent with high-temperature expansion studied by Houghton et alhks . The last section is devoted to summary and discussion.

## II Renormalization-group transformation for the random probability distribution

In this section, we formulate the renormalization-group transformation (RGT) for the random probability distribution in the presence of magnetic impurities following Refs.hl ; l . The GL Hamiltonian to the RFIM is usually described by aim :

$`\beta H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{k_1}}\left(k_1^2+t\right)\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_1)+{\displaystyle _{k_1}}v_1(k_1)\varphi (k_1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{4!}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2,k_3}}\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)\varphi (k_3)\varphi (k_1k_2k_3)`$
(3)
where the momenta $`k_1,k_2,k_3`$ belong to

$$𝒦=\{k:0|k|\mathrm{\Lambda }\}$$
(4)
and the integral means

$$_{k_1,..,k_j}_{k_1𝒦}\frac{d^dk_1}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{}_{k_j𝒦}\frac{d^dk_j}{(2\pi )^d}.$$
(5)
The random magnetic field $`v_1(k)`$ follows the Gaussian distribution $`P_0[v_1]`$

$`P_0[v_1]Ne^{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}_kv_1(k)v_1(k)}`$
$`N\left({\displaystyle 𝒟v_1e^{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}_kv_1(k)v_1(k)}}\right)^1`$
$`𝒟v_1{\displaystyle \underset{k𝒦}{}}dv_1(k).`$ (6)
We treat the random field $`v_1`$ as an external field for a while and examine the RGT. Namely, we first integrate higher-momentum components of $`\varphi `$ and then perform the rescaling of the potentials and the fields appropriately. Let us observe correction terms that appear in higher-momentum integration. Let $`G(q)`$ be the free propagator: $`G(q)=(q^2+t)^1`$. By integrating the higher-momentum components by perturbation in $`u_1`$, we have the following correction to the $`\varphi ^2`$ term in the leading order:

$$u_1_q^>v_1(q)G(q)v_1(p_1+p_2+q)G(p_1+p_2+q)\varphi (p_1)\varphi (p_2).$$
(7)
Here integration is carried out on higher-momentum space $`𝒦_>`$ and $`\varphi (p_i)`$ is a lower-momentum component. Similarly, the $`\varphi ^4`$ term gets

$`u_1^2{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}p_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}q_j){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}v_1(q_i)G(q_i)\times `$
$`G(p_1+p_2+q_1){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\varphi (p_i).`$ (8)
Further, a cubic interaction emerges through, for example,

$`u_1^2{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}p_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}q_j){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}v_1(q_i)G(q_i)\times `$
$`G(p_1+p_2+q_1){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\varphi (p_i).`$ (9)
These corrections are depicted in FIG. 1. Eqs. (7), (8) and (9) respectively correspond to (a), (b) and (c) of the figure.

The correction terms indicate that the coefficients of the $`\varphi ^2`$ and $`\varphi ^4`$ terms in the Hamiltonian no longer possess translational invariance. In order to absorb those terms, we need to extend $`(k^2+t)`$ and $`u_1`$ to inhomogeneous potentials. In addition, the cubic interaction should be also included. Thus the GL Hamiltonian $`S(\beta H)`$ is generalized as

$$S[\varphi ;\rho ]=\underset{l=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{1}{l!}_{k_1,\mathrm{},k_l}v_l(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)\varphi (k_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (k_l),$$
(10)
where $`\rho `$ represents all of the inhomogeneous potentials:

$$\rho =(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4).$$
(11)
Starting with the Hamiltonian (10), we describe the RGT definitely. The higher and lower-momentum spaces are respectively defined as

$$𝒦_>=\{q:L^1\mathrm{\Lambda }<|q|\mathrm{\Lambda }\}$$
(12)
and

$$𝒦_<=\{p:0<|p|L^1\mathrm{\Lambda }\}$$
(13)
with $`L>1`$. The Hamiltonian $`S`$ is decomposed into $`S^<`$ and $`S^>`$, where $`S^<`$ consists only of the lower momentum components of the field. The remaining part is denoted by $`S^>`$, i.e.,

$$S=S^<+S^>.$$
(14)
Let us integrate over the higher-momentum components $`\varphi (q)`$ in the partition function. Namely,

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k𝒦}{}d\varphi (k)e^S}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒦_<}{}d\varphi (p)e^{S^<}\underset{q𝒦_>}{}d\varphi (q)e^{S^>}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒦_<}{}d\varphi (p)e^{S^<\delta S}},`$
where $`\delta S`$ can be written as

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \underset{k𝒦_>}{}d\varphi (k)e^{S^>}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l!}}{\displaystyle \delta v_l(p_1,\mathrm{},p_l)\varphi (p_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (p_l)}`$
$`+\text{ irrelevant terms}.`$
Next the scaling transformation is performed as

$$\varphi (p)=L^\theta \varphi ^{}(k),$$
(17)
where $`k`$ is related to $`p`$ by

$$k=Lp.$$
(18)
Defining the new inhomogeneous potentials $`v_l^{}`$ by

$$v_l^{}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)L^{l\left(\theta d\right)}\left(v_l(p_1,\mathrm{},p_l)+\delta v_l(p_1,\mathrm{},p_l)\right),$$
(19)
the Hamiltonian turns back to the original form:

$`S^<+\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l!}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,\mathrm{},k_l}}v_l^{}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)\varphi ^{}(k_1)\mathrm{}\varphi ^{}(k_l)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`S[\varphi ^{};\rho ^{}],`$
where $`\rho ^{}=(v_1^{},v_2^{},v_3^{},v_4^{})`$. We then get the RGT for the potential $`\rho \rho ^{}`$. Furthermore, a correlation function transforms as

$$\varphi (p_1),\mathrm{},\varphi (p_n)_{S[\varphi ;\rho ]}=L^{n\theta }\varphi (k_1),\mathrm{},\varphi (k_n)_{S[\varphi ;\rho ^{}]},$$
(21)
where $`_S`$ means the thermal average using the Boltzmann weight $`e^S`$.

We proceed to the average over the random potentials. It should be noted that Eqs. (7), (8) and (9) show that $`v_2`$, $`v_3`$ and $`v_4`$ come to have non-trivial correlations with each other. Therefore we can regard them as random potentials that obey some probability distribution as well as $`v_1`$. We shall denote probability distribution by $`P[\rho ]`$. For example, if we take Eq. (3) as the initial Hamiltonian, the corresponding distribution $`P_1`$ is given by

$`P_1[\rho ]`$ $`=`$ $`P_0[v_1]{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}{}}\delta (v_2(k_1,k_2)(k_1^2+t)\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta (k_1+k_2))\delta \left(v_3(k_1,k_2,k_3)\right)\times `$ (22)
$`\delta \left(v_4(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)u_1\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_j\right)\right).`$
The RGT for the random potential $`\rho \rho ^{}`$ can be pushed into change of $`P`$ by the following rule:

$$F[\rho ^{}]P[\rho ]𝒟\rho =F[\rho ]P^{}[\rho ]𝒟\rho ,$$
(23)
where $`F`$ is an arbitrary functional of $`\rho `$ and

$$𝒟\rho \underset{l=1}{\overset{4}{}}\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_l}{}dv_l(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l).$$
(24)
Namely, $`P^{}`$ is formally written ashl

$$P^{}[\rho ^{}]=P[\rho (\rho ^{})]\left|\frac{\rho (\rho ^{})}{\rho ^{}}\right|.$$
(25)
Eq. (23) defines RGT $`PP^{}`$, keeping the Hamiltonian invariant. For instance, using Eq. (21), the random-potential average of the correlation function becomes

$`{\displaystyle P[\rho ]\varphi (p_1),\mathrm{},\varphi (p_n)_{S[\varphi ;\rho ]}𝒟\rho }`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle P^{}[\rho ]L^{n\theta }\varphi (k_1),\mathrm{},\varphi (k_n)_{S[\varphi ;\rho ]}𝒟\rho }.`$
In the practical computation of the random-potential average, we give cumulants among random potentials instead of giving explicit form to the probability distribution. First, as in the original theory, we put

$`[v_1(k_1);v_1(k_2)]_{P[\rho ]}=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta (k_1+k_2)`$
$`\left[v_2(k_1,k_2)\right]_{P[\rho ]}=(k_1^2+t)\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta (k_1+k_2)`$
$`\left[v_4(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)\right]_{P[\rho ]}=u_1\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_j\right),`$ (27)
where $`[]_{P[\rho ]}`$ means to take the average over the random variables with distribution $`P[\rho ]`$. The semicolon in the bracket means the cumulant product: e.g., $`[X;Y]_{P[\rho ]}\left[XY\right]_{P[\rho ]}\left[X\right]_{P[\rho ]}\left[Y\right]_{P[\rho ]}`$. We assume that there is no long-range correlation between random variables. In this assumption, the following non-vanishing cumulants are added to Eq. (27):

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}[v_1(k_1);v_3(k_2,k_3,k_4)]_{P[\rho ]}\hfill \\ [v_2(k_1,k_2);v_2(k_3,k_4)]_{P[\rho ]}\hfill \\ [v_2(k_1,k_2);v_1(k_3);v_1(k_4)]_{P[\rho ]}\hfill \\ [v_1(k_1);v_1(k_2);v_1(k_3);v_1(k_4)]_{P[\rho ]}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_2\\ u_3\\ u_4\\ u_5\end{array}\right)\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_j\right).`$ (37)
Note that we respect the symmetry

$$v_1v_1,\varphi \varphi ,$$
(38)
so that

$$\left[v_1(k_1)\right]_{P[\rho ]}=\left[v_3(k_1,k_2,k_3)\right]_{P[\rho ]}=0.$$
(39)
The parameters $`u_j(j=1,\mathrm{},5)`$ have the scaling dimension $`4d`$ (measured by the inverse length). Cumulants other than Eqs. (27) and (37) are ignored since they are associated with higher-dimensional parameters222However, there are apparent higher-dimensional parameters that effectively have the same scaling dimensions as $`u_i`$fe . See Sec. IV.4. . Probability distribution $`P`$ is characterized by parameters $`(t,\mathrm{\Delta },u_1,\mathrm{},u_5)\mu `$. Transformed distribution $`P^{}`$ is similarly characterized by $`(t^{},\mathrm{\Delta }^{},u_1^{},\mathrm{},u_5^{})\mu ^{}`$. Namely, $`\mu ^{}`$ is obtained taking the random-potential average of Eqs. (27) and (37) in use of $`P^{}[\rho ]`$ instead of $`P[\rho ]`$.

Transformation $`\mu \mu ^{}`$ is analyzed using the following formula:

$`[v_{l_1}(k_1^1,\mathrm{},k_{l_1}^1);\mathrm{};v_{l_n}(k_1^n,\mathrm{},k_{l_n}^n)]_{P^{}[\rho ]}`$
$`=`$ $`[v_{l_1}^{}(k_1^1,\mathrm{},k_{l_1}^1);\mathrm{};v_{l_n}^{}(k_1^n,\mathrm{},k_{l_n}^n)]_{P[\rho ]},`$ (40)
which is easily checked from Eq. (23). We apply it to the non-vanishing cumulants. By definition, the left-hand side can be written in $`\mu ^{}`$. On the other hand, if the transformed potentials are described by the original ones employing Eq. (19), the right-hand side can be evaluated in terms of $`\mu `$. In this way, $`\mu ^{}`$ is expressed in terms of $`\mu `$.

## III Perturbative renormalization group

### III.1 Diagrammatic expansion

In this section we obtain transformation $`\mu \mu ^{}`$ by perturbation. We consider all $`u_j`$s as small parameters and express $`\mu ^{}`$ up to $`\mathrm{O}(u_iu_j)`$. On the other hand, we do not regard $`t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as small since they are relevant parameters of the dimension 2.

We can formulate the perturbative expansion by adopting the random-potential average of $`v_2(q_1,q_2)`$ and the linear term as the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`S_0`$:

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}\left[v_2(k_1,k_2)\right]_{P[\rho ]}\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)+{\displaystyle _k}v_1(k)\varphi (k)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _k}(k^2+t)\phi (k)\phi (k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _k}v_1(k)G(k)v_1(k),`$
where

$`\phi (k)`$ $``$ $`\varphi (k)+G(k)v_1(k)`$
$`G(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+t}}.`$ (42)
The remaining terms are denoted by $`V`$ and treated as the perturbative Hamiltonian. Let

$$V=\underset{j=2}{\overset{4}{}}V_j,$$
(43)
where

$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}\left(v_2(k_1,k_2)\left[v_2(k_1,k_2)\right]_{P[\rho ]}\right)\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)`$
$`V_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j!}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,\mathrm{},k_j}}v_j(k_1,\mathrm{},k_j)\varphi (k_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (k_j),`$ (44)
$`(j=3,4).`$
As we have performed in Eq. (14), we divide $`S_0`$ and $`V`$ into

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`S_0^>+S_0^<`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V^>+V^<`$ (45)
respectively. The free part of the partition function is denoted by

$$Z_0=\underset{q𝒦_>}{}d\varphi (q)e^{S_0^>}.$$
(46)
Writing

$$X_>\frac{1}{Z_0}\underset{q𝒦_>}{}d\varphi (q)Xe^{S_0^>},$$
(47)
$`\delta S`$ in Eq. (16) is expanded as

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}Z_0+\mathrm{log}e^{V^>}_>`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}Z_0V^>_>+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^>;V^>_>`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}V^>;V^>;V^>_>+\mathrm{O}(V_{}^{>}{}_{}{}^{4}),`$
where the semicolon represents the cumulant with respect to the thermal average $`_>`$. Note that, in practical computation, $`\varphi (q)`$ in $`V^>`$ is understood as $`\phi (q)G(q)v_1(q)`$ and the Wick theorem is applied to $`\phi (q)`$. Comparing Eqs.(16) and (48), we can obtain the perturbative expansion of $`\delta v_l(p_1,\mathrm{},p_l)`$, which leads to transformed potential $`v_l^{}`$ defined in Eq. (19). Inserting the resultant $`v_l^{}`$ into the right-hand side of Eq. (40), we can express the transformed parameters in terms of the original ones. In order to proceed with this program efficiently, we will use the diagrammatic technique.

Let us depict $`v_l^{}`$ by a shaded circle with $`l`$ dashed lines. FIG. 2 exemplifies the case of $`l=2`$.

The shaded circle contains $`\delta v_l`$, which is expanded by connected diagrams, according to Eq. (48). The random potential $`v_l(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ makes an $`l`$-point vertex. In particular, $`v_1(q)(q𝒦_>)`$ is expressed by an open circle. It should be noted that total momentum is not conserved at the vertex $`v_l(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$.

When we take the random-potential average, non-vanishing cumulants $`\left[v_4\right]_{P[\rho ]}`$, $`[v_3;v_1]_{P[\rho ]}`$, $`[v_2;v_2]_{P[\rho ]}`$, $`[v_2;v_1;v_1]_{P[\rho ]}`$ and $`[v_1;v_1;v_1;v_1]_{P[\rho ]}`$ can be graphically represented as four-point vertices at which the total momenta, carried by the four lines, are conserved due to the delta function in Eq. (37). See FIG. 3.

Further, the cumulant $`[v_1;v_1]_{P[\rho ]}`$ tells us that two internal lines ended with the open circles are merged by the random-potential average and produce $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We here depict it by a cross, $`\times `$, as in FIG. 4. The cross reminds us that the two internal lines are not connected with respect to the thermal average.

The right-hand side of Eq. (40) is graphically represented as the left-hand side of FIG. 5. When we expand the shaded circles in FIG. 5, we get a summation of the diagrams that contain several connected components, as shown in the right-hand side of the figure.

If we want to know $`u_i^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{O}(u_ju_k)`$, we need to consider the one-loop diagrams made of the vertices in FIG. 3 and $`\times `$, including the numerical factors of those diagrams. Note that a one-loop diagram that contains a connected component without external legs does not appear in the right-hand side of FIG. 5, because the shaded circles in the left-hand side consist of only connected diagrams. In particular, it is ruled out that there are two or more $`\times `$s on an internal line.

In order to write down all one-loop diagrams in the right-hand side of FIG. 5, we must first consider all the admissible diagrams without $`\times `$, and then put $`\times `$ on as many internal lines as possible. After we obtain the set of all one-loop diagrams, we have to compute their numerical factors. Although the procedure is fulfilled in appendix A, here we present the following examples.

### III.2 Example

Let us consider FIG. 6(a). Putting $`\times `$ on the internal lines, (b), (c), and (d) in the figure are generated. However, (c) and (d) are excluded because they contain connected components without external lines. Counting the external lines of the connected components in FIG. 6(a), we find that it makes a contribution to $`u_4^{}`$, while FIG. 6(b) contributes to $`u_5^{}`$.

First we compute the contribution from FIG. 6(a) to

$`u_4^{}\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_i\right)=[v_2^{}(k_1,k_2),v_1^{}(k_3);v_1^{}(k_4)]_{P[\rho ]}.`$ (49)
Using Eq. (19), FIG. 6(a) comes from

$$L^{4(\theta d)}[\delta v_2(p_1,p_2);\delta v_1(p_3);v_1(p_4)]_{P[\rho ]}+(p_3p_4).$$
(50)
The second term arises because the roles of $`v_1^{}(k_3)`$ and $`v_1^{}(k_4)`$ can interchange. The two terms in the right-hand side of Eq. (50) equally contribute to $`u_4`$. In general, if a cumulant contains multiple potentials of the same kind, the number of ways of interchanging should be counted. We shall denote the number with $`n_R`$. As for the present case,

$$n_R=2.$$
(51)
Now we compute the first term. Defining

$`V_l^{(m)}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_m){\displaystyle \frac{1}{l!}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l}{m}}\right)\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{q_1,\mathrm{},q_{lm}}^>}v_l(p_1,\mathrm{},p_m,q_1,..,q_{lm}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{lm}{}}}\varphi \left(q_i\right),`$ (52)
we show explicitly the terms in $`\delta v_2(p_1,p_2)`$ necessary for making FIG. 6(a) as

$`\delta v_2(p_1,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2!{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}V_2^{(1)}(p_1);V_2^{(1)}(p_2)_>+\mathrm{}`$ (53)
$``$ $`a_1{\displaystyle _{q_1}^>}v_2(p_1,q_1)v_2(p_2,q_1)G(q_1)`$
$`+\mathrm{}.`$
Here the dots in the right-hand side indicate terms not employed for FIG. 6(a). In the first equality, the factor $`2!`$ originates from the normalization of $`\delta v_2(p_1,p_2)`$, while $`1/2!`$ comes from the expansion of $`e^{V_2}`$. The minus sign is so put because it is a second-order perturbation term. Performing the thermal average, we can easily check that

$$a_1=1.$$
(54)
Similarly,

$`\delta v_1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`V_2^{(1)}(p)_>+\mathrm{}`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`a_2{\displaystyle _{q_2}^>}v_2(p_3,q_2)v_1(q_2)G(q_2)`$
with

$$a_2=1.$$
(56)
The factors $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are associated with the connected components of the diagram we have computed. We shall denote the product of them with $`n_A`$, i.e.,

$$n_A=a_1a_2=1.$$
(57)
Next we go to the random-potential average. Inserting Eqs.(53) and (55) into the first term of Eq. (50), the random-potential average becomes

$`L^{4(\theta d)}{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}G(q_1)G(q_2)[v_2(p_1,q_1)v_2(p_2,q_1);v_2(p_3,q_2)v_1(q_2);v_1(p_4)]_{P[\rho ]}`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`L^{4(\theta d)}{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}G(q_1)G(q_2)[v_2(p_1,q_1);v_2(p_3,q_2)]_{P[\rho ]}[v_2(p_2,q_1);v_1(q_2);v_1(p_4)]_{P[\rho ]}`$
$`+(v_2(p_1,q_1)v_2(p_2,q_1))`$
$`=`$ $`L^{4\theta 3d}u_3u_4\left(2\pi \right)^d\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}k_i\right){\displaystyle _q^>}\left(G(q)G(p_2+p_4q)+G(q)G(p_1+p_4+q)\right).`$
Note that there are two ways of contraction with respect to the random-potential average in the first equality. We denote the number of ways of the contraction by $`n_C`$. That is,

$$n_C=2$$
(59)
in the case of FIG. 6(a).

Thus the correction to $`u_4`$ by way of FIG. 6(a) is read from Eq. (58), combining with the second term of Eq. (50). Letting $`p_i=0`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ in $`G`$, we find that the numerical factor $`n_F`$ associated with the diagram is

$$n_F=n_An_Rn_C=4.$$
(60)
Therefore the correction to $`u_4`$ is

$$n_FL^{4\theta 3d}u_3u_4_q^>G^2(q)=4L^{4\theta 3d}u_3u_4_q^>G^2(q).$$
(61)
Let us turn to FIG. 6(b), which affects $`u_5^{}[v_1^{}(p_1);v_1^{}(p_2);v_1^{}(p_3);v_1^{}(p_4)]_{P[\rho ]}`$. For creating this diagram, we need three $`V_2^{(1)}(p)_>`$ and one $`v_1(p)`$. Obviously,

$$n_R=4.$$
(62)
The numerical factor associated with the connected component was already computed in Eq. (55). Their product becomes

$$n_A=\left(1\right)^3\times 1=1.$$
(63)
Since the number of contractions is equal to the number of ways of contracting $`v_2(p,q)`$ and $`v_1(p)`$,

$$n_C=3.$$
(64)
Thus the contribution to $`u_5^{}`$ of FIG. 6(b) is

$$n_F\mathrm{\Delta }u_2u_3L^{4\theta 3d}_q^>G(q)^3,$$
(65)
with

$$n_F=n_Rn_Cn_A=12.$$
(66)
### III.3 Results

After writing all one-loop diagrams appearing in the right-hand side of FIG. 5, we can obtain the recursion equation in $`\mathrm{O}\left(u_iu_j\right)`$. The coefficients $`n_A`$, $`n_C`$, and $`n_R`$ associated with each diagrams are presented in appendix A. Here we present the result.

$`u_j^{}=L^{4\theta 3d}\left(u_j+\delta u_j\right),\left(j=1,\mathrm{},5\right)`$
$`t^{}=L^{2\theta d}\left(t+\delta t\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=L^{2\theta d}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$ (67)
with

$`\delta u_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3𝒜_3\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}𝒜_2\right)u_1^2+6𝒜_2u_1\stackrel{~}{u}_3`$
$`\delta u_2`$ $`=`$ $`3𝒜_3\mathrm{\Delta }u_1\stackrel{~}{u}_3{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}𝒜_2u_1u_2+6𝒜_2u_2\stackrel{~}{u}_33𝒜_2u_2^2+3𝒜_2u_1u_4`$
$`\delta u_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_4\mathrm{\Delta }^2u_1^2\left(2𝒜_3\mathrm{\Delta }+𝒜_2\right)u_1\stackrel{~}{u}_3+𝒜_2u_1u_2+𝒜_2u_1u_4+4𝒜_2\stackrel{~}{u}_3^23𝒜_2u_2^26𝒜_2u_2\stackrel{~}{u}_3`$
$`\delta u_4`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_4\mathrm{\Delta }^2u_1\stackrel{~}{u}_3\left(3𝒜_3\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_2\right)u_1u_44𝒜_3\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{u}_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_2u_1u_5𝒜_2u_2\stackrel{~}{u}_3+8𝒜_2\stackrel{~}{u}_3u_4`$
$`\delta u_5`$ $`=`$ $`6𝒜_4\mathrm{\Delta }^2\stackrel{~}{u}_3^236𝒜_3\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{u}_3u_46𝒜_2u_2u_4+6𝒜_2\stackrel{~}{u}_3u_5+24𝒜_2u_4^2,`$ (68)
where we have defined

$$𝒜_n_q^>G(q)^n$$
(69)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_3u_2+u_3.$$
(70)
Similarly, $`\delta t`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ are given as

$`\delta t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝒜_2\mathrm{\Delta }+𝒜_1\right)u_1𝒜_1\stackrel{~}{u}_3`$
$`+\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_2𝒜_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_1𝒜_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒜_2^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒜_1𝒜_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}_0\right)u_1^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_1𝒜_2u_1u_2+\left(\left(𝒜_1𝒜_3+𝒜_2^2+2_1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }+𝒜_1𝒜_2+_0\right)u_1\stackrel{~}{u}_3`$
$`\left(𝒜_1𝒜_2+_0\right)u_1u_4\left(𝒜_1𝒜_2+_0\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_3^2`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_2\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{u}_3+u_2𝒜_12u_4𝒜_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}_3\mathrm{\Delta }^3u_1^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_1𝒜_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_0\right)u_1u_2`$ (71)
$`\left(\left(𝒜_2𝒜_3+2_2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\left(𝒜_1𝒜_3+_1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\right)u_1\stackrel{~}{u}_3`$
$`+\left(\left(𝒜_2^2+3_1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }+𝒜_1𝒜_2+_0\right)u_1u_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_0u_1u_5_0u_2^2`$
$`+\left(2𝒜_1𝒜_2+2_0\right)u_2\stackrel{~}{u}_3+\left(3_1+𝒜_2^2+2𝒜_1𝒜_3\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{u}_3^2\left(4𝒜_1𝒜_2+4_0\right)\stackrel{~}{u}_3u_4,`$
where

$`_0{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}G(q_1)G(q_2)G(q_1+q_2)`$
$`_1{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}G(q_1)^2G(q_2)G(q_1+q_2)`$
$`_2{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}G(q_1)^2G(q_2)^2G(q_1+q_2)`$
$`_3{\displaystyle _{q_1,q_2}^>}G(q_1)^2G(q_2)^2G(q_1+q_2)^2.`$ (72)
### III.4 Comparison to the replica method

We compare the recursion relations shown above to those obtained by the replica methodbd ; sak , where the perturbative Hamiltonian is

$`S_{\mathrm{int}}^{\mathrm{rep}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_1^{\mathrm{rep}}}{4!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _\alpha ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{u_2^{\mathrm{rep}}}{3!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1^n}{}}\varphi _\alpha ^3\varphi _\beta `$ (73)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u_3^{\mathrm{rep}}}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _\alpha ^2\varphi _\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u_4^{\mathrm{rep}}}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _\alpha ^2\varphi _\beta \varphi _\gamma `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u_5^{\mathrm{rep}}}{4!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi _\gamma \varphi _\delta .`$
Brézin and de Dominicis proposed the two limiting procedures listed below:

(A) $`u_1^{\mathrm{rep}},\mathrm{},u_5^{\mathrm{rep}}`$ are fixed, then take $`n0`$.

(B) $`u_1^{\mathrm{rep}},nu_2^{\mathrm{rep}},nu_3^{\mathrm{rep}},n^2u_4^{\mathrm{rep}},n^3u_5^{\mathrm{rep}}`$ are fixed and take $`n0`$.

We can check that the recursion equations (67) - (70) are consistent with the procedure (A) by the following identification

$`u_i=u_i^{\mathrm{rep}},`$ for $`i=1,4`$ (74)
$`u_j=u_j^{\mathrm{rep}},`$ $`\text{for }j=2,3,5.`$
More precisely, we pick the correction terms proportional to $`𝒜_3`$ in Eq. (71), which is estimated as $`\mathrm{log}L`$ in $`d=6ϵ`$. Putting $`L=e^{\delta l}`$ and taking the first order of $`\delta l`$, we get the beta functions in Refs.bd ; sak . This is an expected result, because we can obtain the replicated Hamiltonian $`S_{\mathrm{rep}}^{}`$ from the cumulant expansion

$$S_{\mathrm{rep}}^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(1\right)^j}{j!}[\underset{\alpha }{}S[\varphi _\alpha ;\rho ];\mathrm{};\underset{\beta }{}S[\varphi _\beta ;\rho ]]_{P[\rho ]}$$
(75)
with use of Eqs.(27) and (37). We find that $`S_{\mathrm{rep}}^{}`$ with Eq. (74) gives Eq. (73).

The procedure (B) contains some diagrams of $`\mathrm{O}(n)`$. These diagrams never appear by way of the present method, because those contain a connected component without external lines.

## IV Expansion parameters

### IV.1 Preliminaries

Since all $`u_j`$s have the dimension $`4d`$, they are apparently irrelevant when $`d>4`$. However, coefficients of the perturbation series in $`\{u_j\}`$ are expressed as polynomial of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ having the dimension 2, which can change the relevance of $`u_j`$s. That is, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is relevant for all dimensions, a term containing it can become larger as repeating the RGT. Hence, it is important to explore how $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ appears in the perturbation series.

To make our argument clear, let us consider $`\delta t`$ as an example. The coefficient of the first order in $`u_1`$, which appears in the first term of $`\delta t`$ in Eq. (71), is depicted by the diagrams in FIG. 7. The internal line of (a) in the figure carries $`G(q)`$, which behaves as $`1/q^2`$ at the criticality, while the internal line of (b) brings $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(q)^2\mathrm{\Delta }/q^4`$.

Namely, the dominant contribution is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_1`$, as pointed out in the previous literaturesaim ; g . We then introduce

$$g_1\mathrm{\Delta }u_1.$$
(76)
as one of expansion parameters. It has the scaling dimension $`6d`$, which implies that the upper critical dimension is six. Therefore we cannot ignore $`u_1`$ in $`d6`$, even though $`u_1`$ itself is irrelevant when $`4<d`$.

In addition, we define

$$g_0\mathrm{\Delta }^1.$$
(77)
FIG. 7(a) is then proportional to $`u_1=g_0g_1`$. Generally, if a diagram includes the irrelevant parameter $`g_0`$, its contribution is less relevant.

Next we discuss how $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couples with the other parameters $`u_2,\mathrm{},u_5`$. Let us look at the first-order terms in $`u_2`$ and $`u_3`$ respectively, which appear in the second term of $`\delta t`$ in Eq. (71). (Note: we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{u}_3u_2+u_3`$.)

It turns out that their coefficients do not carry $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ because putting $`\times `$ on the internal line produces disconnected components as shown in FIG. 8(c) and (d), so that (c) and (d) do not appear in the perturbation series. Thus no $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ associates with $`u_2`$ and $`u_3`$, so that we choose

$`g_2\mathrm{\Delta }^0u_2=u_2`$
$`g_3\mathrm{\Delta }^0u_3=u_3`$ (78)
as expansion parameters. They have the scaling dimension $`4d`$.

Let us turn to the parameter $`u_4`$. It contributes to $`\delta t`$ by the combination $`u_1u_4`$ in the lowest order. See FIG. 9. Here $`\times `$ is forbidden, for the same reason it is in FIG. 8(c).

Therefore, this contribution is proportional to $`u_1u_4=g_1\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^1u_4\right)`$. Then we add

$$g_4\mathrm{\Delta }^1u_4$$
(79)
to the expansion parameters. It has the scaling dimension $`2d`$.

As for $`u_5`$, the leading correction to $`\delta t`$ comes from the order in $`u_1^2u_5=g_1^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2u_5\right)`$, as we depicted in FIG. 10.

Hence we define

$$g_5=\mathrm{\Delta }^2u_5,$$
(80)
which has the dimension $`d`$.

In this way, we can express the perturbation series of $`\delta t`$ in terms of $`g_0,\mathrm{},g_5`$. Further, we can rewrite the recursion equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`u_i`$ $`(1=1,\mathrm{},5)`$ into those for $`g_\mu `$ $`(\mu =0,\mathrm{},5)`$. It is easily confirmed from the explicit form of Eqs.(68) and (71) that no $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ appears in these series at least in the second order in $`\{g_\mu \}`$. Therefore a naive dimensional analysis is expected to work. Since the scaling dimensions of the new parameters are

$`[g_0]=2,[g_1]=6d,[g_2]=[g_3]=4d,`$
$`[g_4]=2d,[g_5]=d`$ (81)
respectively, only $`g_1`$ is relevant near $`d=6`$. This suggests that the extra parameters $`g_2,\mathrm{},g_5`$ do not play any important role for critical phenomena in the RFIM when $`d`$ is close to 6.

### IV.2 The Gaussian case

In order to make our argument more precise, we need to show that recursion relations for $`(t,\{g_\mu \})`$ do not contain positive powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for all orders.

To this end, it is instructive to consider the case where the probability distribution of impurities is Gaussian, i.e., $`u_2,\mathrm{},u_5`$ are ignoredaim ; g . Suppose that $`u_1^{}`$ is expressed as

$$u_1^{}=L^{4\theta 3d}\underset{a_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_{a_1}(\mathrm{\Delta },t)u_1^{a_1}.$$
(82)
Here $`f_{a_1}(\mathrm{\Delta },t)`$ is obtained from the sum of all diagrams for $`\left[v_4^{}\right]_{P[\rho ]}`$ with $`a_1`$ $`\varphi ^4`$ vertices. Since the number of $`\times `$ in a diagram gives the power of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`f_{a_1}(\mathrm{\Delta },t)`$ is a polynomial of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with a finite degree. Letting $`\gamma _{a_1}`$ be that degree, we can write

$$f_{a_1}(\mathrm{\Delta },t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma _{a_1}}{}}c_n\mathrm{\Delta }^n,$$
(83)
where $`c_n`$ is a coefficient that depends on $`t`$ and $`a_1`$. Hence $`u_1^{}`$ is written as

$`u_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`L^{4\theta 3d}{\displaystyle \underset{a_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma _{a_1}}{}}}c_n\mathrm{\Delta }^nu_1^{a_1}`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`L^{4\theta 3d}{\displaystyle \underset{a_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\gamma _{a_1}}u_1^{a_1}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma _{a_1}}{}}}c_n\mathrm{\Delta }^{n\gamma _{a_1}}.`$
Let us obtain $`\gamma _{a_1}`$. Since the diagrams for $`u_1^{}`$ have a single connected component, internal lines without $`\times `$ are needed at least $`a_11`$. Excluding four external lines from the total lines $`4a_1`$, internal lines on which we can put $`\times `$ are at most

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(4a_142\left(a_11\right)\right)=a_11.$$
(85)
This is nothing but $`\gamma _1`$. Thus

$$u_1^{}=L^{4\theta 3d}\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left(\underset{a_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_1^{a_1}\underset{n=0}{\overset{a_11}{}}c_ng_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\left(a_11\right)n}\right).$$
(86)
Note that the power of $`g_0`$, $`a_11n`$, is non-negative in the above summation. Similar observations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ lead to the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=L^{2\theta d}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1+\underset{a_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_1^{a_1}\underset{n=0}{\overset{a_1+1}{}}d_ng_0^{\left(a_1+1\right)n}\right)$$
(87)
and

$$t^{}=L^{2\theta d}\left(t+\underset{a_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_1^{a_1}\underset{n=0}{\overset{a_1}{}}e_ng_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{a_1n}\right)$$
(88)
where $`\{d_n\}`$ and $`\{e_n\}`$ are $`t`$-dependent coefficients. From Eqs.(86) and (87), one finds that $`g_1^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}u_1^{}`$, $`g_0^{}=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^1`$ and $`t^{}`$ are expanded by $`g_1`$ and $`g_0`$ for all orders.

### IV.3 General case

Next, we extend the above argument to the case where the extra parameters $`u_2,\mathrm{},u_5`$ are included. Let $`𝐙^+`$ be the set of non-negative integers. Define

$`I`$ $`\{a:a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_5),a_j𝐙^+,`$ (89)
$`j=1,\mathrm{},5,{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}a_j1\}.`$
For $`aI`$, we use the notation

$$u^a\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}u_j^{a_j}.$$
(90)
The recursion equation for $`u_j`$ can be written as

$$u_j^{}=L^{4\theta 3d}\underset{aI}{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\gamma _a^j}u^a\underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma _a^j}{}}c_n^j\mathrm{\Delta }^{n\gamma _a^j}.$$
(91)
Here we compute $`\gamma _a^j`$, the degree of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`u^a`$ in $`u_j^{}`$. The number of connected components in the vertex corresponding to $`u_j`$ is denoted by $`\alpha _j`$, namely,

$$\alpha _1=1,\alpha _2=\alpha _3=2,\alpha _4=3,\alpha _5=4.$$
(92)
Here we consider a diagram proportional to $`u^a`$ in Eq. (91). Before connecting the vertices in the diagram by internal lines, there are

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\alpha _ia_i$$
(93)
connected components. Since the diagram has $`\alpha _j`$ connected components after connecting the vertices, we need at least

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\alpha _ia_i\alpha _j$$
(94)
no-$`\times `$ internal lines. Similar computation for Eq. (85) leads to

$`\gamma _a^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(4{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{5}{}}}a_l42\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\alpha _ia_i\alpha _j\right)\right)`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`\beta _j{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\beta _ia_i,`$
where we have defined $`\beta _j\alpha _j2`$. Explicitly,

$$\beta _1=1,\beta _2=\beta _3=0,\beta _4=1,\beta _5=2.$$
(96)
According to the definition of the expansion parameters, we find

$$g_j=\mathrm{\Delta }^{\beta _j}u_j,j=1,\mathrm{},5.$$
(97)
Applying the result of Eq. (95) to Eq. (91), we get

$$u_j^{}=L^{4\theta 3d}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\beta _j}\underset{aI}{}g^a\underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma _a^j}{}}c_n^jg_0^{\gamma _a^jn}.$$
(98)
Similarly, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ are expressed by the following expansion:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`L^{2\theta d}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{aI}{}}g^a{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma _a}{}}}\stackrel{~}{d}_ng_0^{\gamma _an}\right)`$
$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`L^{2\theta d}\left(t+{\displaystyle \underset{aI}{}}g^a{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\gamma _a}{}}}\stackrel{~}{e}_ng_0^{\gamma _an}\right)`$ (99)
with

$$\gamma _a=\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\beta _i\alpha _i.$$
(100)
Using Eq. (98) and the above expansion for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, we conclude that $`g_j^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^{\beta j}u_j^{}`$ is expanded by $`\{g_\mu \}`$. Further, it is obvious from Eq. (99) that $`g_0^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ also have perturbation series in terms of $`\{g_\mu \}`$.

It should be noted that some physical quantities, such as free energy, are proportional to the relevant parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Hence if we compute an exponent associated with those quantities, we have to know the singular behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near the criticality. As we can see in the first line of Eq. (99), $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is renormalized multiplicatively and its correction is expanded in terms of $`\{g_\mu \}`$. Therefore, we can compute the singular behavior within the framework of perturbation in terms of $`\{g_\mu \}`$.

### IV.4 Observation for dimensional reduction of the RFIM

We have shown that the transformed parameters $`\{g_\mu ^{}\}`$ can be expressed as positive series in $`\{g_\mu \}`$. Since the expansion parameters other than $`g_1`$ are irrelevant near $`d=6`$, we may ignore them.

As we have mentioned in Sec. III.4, our recursion relations are consistent with the replica method studied by Brézin and de Dominicis if we adopt the limiting procedure (A) explained in Sec. III.4bd . However, it is concluded that the non-trivial fixed point becomes unstable due to $`u_2,\mathrm{},u_5`$ in Ref.bd . The discrepancy between this and our conclusion is resolved as follows: in Ref.bd , the recursion relations of parameters $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j\mathrm{\Delta }u_j`$ are computed. Since $`[\stackrel{~}{g}_j]=6d`$ for all $`j`$, it is possible that some of $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j`$ becomes larger as the RGT is repeated. Nevertheless, it does not mean that a diagram proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j`$ brings infrared divergence near the upper critical dimension.

In fact, if we write $`\delta t`$ in Eq. (71) by $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j`$ instead of $`u_j`$, one can easily check that $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j`$s for $`j=2,\mathrm{},5`$ are always combined with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Thus, even though $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j`$ $`(j=2,\mathrm{},5)`$ behave as $`g_j^{}L^{c_jϵ}g_j`$ with $`c_j>0`$, the negative powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ suppresses growth of terms proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j`$ in $`\delta t`$. The discussion in the previous subsection shows that the association with the negative powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ occurs for all orders. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{g}_j`$s $`(j=2,\mathrm{},5)`$ do not contribute to exponents.

Although the extra parameters remain irrelevant near the upper critical dimension, it is plausible that those parameters become relevant when $`ϵ`$ exceeds some finite value $`ϵ_c`$, which can cause the breakdown of the dimensional reduction in $`d=3`$. The existence of such critical value is consistent with a high-temperature expansion by Houghton et alhks . They concluded that dimensional reduction occurs in $`d=5`$ and 6 while the phase transition becomes first order in $`d4`$. It is strongly suggested that $`1<ϵ_c<2`$. On the other hand, another high-temperature expansion performed by Gofman et al suggests that the breakdown of dimensional reduction in $`d5`$gaahs . It can be interpreted as $`0<ϵ_c<1`$.

As we explained above, dimensional reduction can survive for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$. In this case, the exponents $`\nu `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ are calculated as333A derivation of these results are outlined in appendix B.

$$\nu =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{12}ϵ+\mathrm{O}(ϵ^2),\eta =\overline{\eta }=\frac{1}{54}ϵ^2+\mathrm{O}(ϵ^3)$$
(101)
However, other parameters not considered here may bring the breakdown of dimensional reduction for all $`d<6`$. It is conjectured by Feldman that the apparently higher-dimensional operators $`_{ab}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^b)^{2l}`$ ($`l>1/ϵ^2`$) turn to relevant onesfe . In the Harris-Lubensky method, similar operators $`_{ab}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^b)^l`$ are introduced, taking into account the following random average:

$$[v_l(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l);v_l(k_1^{},\mathrm{},k_l^{})]_{P[\rho ]}=\overline{u}_l\delta \left(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l^{}\right).$$
(102)
The parameter $`\overline{u}_l`$ is, itself, irrelevant. However, following the argument in Sec. IV, one can find an expansion parameter proportional to $`\overline{u}_l`$ is $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^{l2}\overline{u}_l`$, which has the canonical dimension $`(l1)(4d)l(4d)`$ for large $`l`$. Feldman shows that they acquire anomalous dimension with $`\mathrm{O}\left(l^2ϵ^2\right)`$ in the second-order perturbation. It means that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^{l2}\overline{u}_l`$ can transmute a relevant parameter for sufficiently large $`l`$ satisfiying $`l>1/ϵ^2`$. The conjecture should be checked by a non-perturbative means that is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless it is consistent with our result in that the operator with $`l=2`$ (i.e., $`\left(\varphi ^a\varphi ^b\right)^2`$) is irrelevant for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$.

## V Summary and discussion

In this paper, we have studied the critical phenomena of the extended Ginzburg-Landau theory for the random-field Ising model. We have employed the renormalization group for the probability distribution of the impurities. Probability distribution is characterized by non-trivial cumulants that bring extra parameters, which are essentially identical to the new coupling constants in the replica Hamiltonian introduced in Refs.hks ; bd . In contrast to the replica method, our approach does not require any limiting procedures, and hence no artificial ambiguities arise. Thus we can definitely determine the scaling dimensions of expansion parameters. We have found that extra expansion parameters do not affect the critical phenomena in $`d=6ϵ`$ with sufficiently small $`ϵ`$. On the other hand, those parameters could be an obstruction to the dimensional reduction at some finite $`ϵ`$. This result indicates that we cannot rule out dimensional reduction near $`d=6`$ by including the extra coupling constants in Eq. (37). It is consistent with the high-temperature expansion by Haughton et alhks . On the other hand, another high-temperature expansion by Gofman et al is not consistent with Ref.hks , which may indicate that the dimensional reduction does not occur in any $`d<6`$gaahs . It is important to resolve this discrepancy for clarifying mechanisms in the phase transition in the RFIM near the upper critical dimension.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank C. Itoi for valuable discussions.

## Appendix A Computation of the recursion equations

In this appendix, we show technical details of computing the correction terms Eq. (68) in $`\mathrm{O}\left(u_iu_j\right)`$. Eq. (71) can be obtained in a similar manner.

We do not obtain an explicit form of $`v_j^{}`$. Instead, we derive all possible diagrams in the desired order that appear in the right-hand side of FIG. 5.

First, we consider diagrams without $`\times `$ on an internal line. As we have presented in FIG. 3, the cumulants can be expanded by the five kinds of vertices. The lowest-order correction to $`u_j^{}`$ comes from the vertices with two external legs. There are nine such vertices as depicted in FIG. 11.

Merging two of them, we obtain diagrams that contribute to $`u_j^{}(j=1,\mathrm{},5)`$ up to the order $`\mathrm{O}(u_iu_j)`$. We write the number $`j`$ in Table 1 if the resulting diagram contributes to $`u_j^{}`$.

For instance, we can read from Table 1 that the diagram made of the vertices $`A`$ and $`B`$ contributes to $`u_2^{}`$. As we have mentioned in Sec. III.1, any connected components of a diagram in the right-hand side of FIG. 5 must contain at least one external line. In Table 1, a blank means that the corresponding diagram does not satisfy this condition.

Now we calculate the numerical factor to each diagram, as we have demonstrated in III.2. In contrast to the pure $`\varphi ^4`$ theory, a one-loop diagram has multiple connected components in general. There is the combinatoric factor associated with each connected component, which can be computed in the same way as with the pure theory. Here we denote the product of the combinatoric factor of each connected component as

$$n_A.$$
(103)
Next, consider the case where a cumulant for $`u_j`$ has two (or more) identical potential $`v_i`$. Suppose that $`v_i^{}`$ is expressed by the series $`_kv_i^{(k)}`$. If a diagram for $`u_j^{}`$ consists of $`v_i^{(k)}`$ and $`v_i^{(k^{})}`$ with $`kk^{}`$, then

$`u_j^{}`$ $``$ $`[v_i^{};\mathrm{}v_i^{};\mathrm{}]_{P[\rho ]}`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`[v_i^{(k)};\mathrm{}v_i^{(k^{})};\mathrm{}]_{P[\rho ]}+[v_i^{(k^{})};\mathrm{}v_i^{(k)};\mathrm{}]_{P[\rho ]}`$
$`+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`2[v_i^{(k)};\mathrm{}v_i^{(k^{})};\mathrm{}]_{P[\rho ]}+\mathrm{}.`$
Such multiplicity is denoted as

$$n_R.$$
(105)
Finally, we have to take into account the number of ways of contraction in the random-potential average. Here it is denoted as

$$n_C.$$
(106)
Then, the factor with a diagram $`n_F`$ is computed as

$$n_F=n_An_Rn_C.$$
(107)
In Tables 2-6, we outline those factors. The first row denotes the power of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the diagrams. The second row shows the name of the vertices in FIG. 11 that are ingredients of the diagrams. The last row indicates the parameter dependence of the diagrams.

It is worthwhile mentioning the relationship to the replica methodbd . From $`S_{\mathrm{int}}^{\mathrm{rep}}`$ defined in Eq. (73),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_{\mathrm{int}}^{\mathrm{rep}}}{\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_1^{\mathrm{rep}}}{2}}\varphi _\alpha ^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{u_2^{\mathrm{rep}}}{2}}\left(\varphi _\alpha ^2+\varphi _\beta ^2\right)+u_3^{\mathrm{rep}}\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\beta `$ (108)
$`+u_2^{\mathrm{rep}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\varphi _\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\varphi _\mu +u_4^{\mathrm{rep}}\left(\varphi _\alpha +\varphi _\beta \right){\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\varphi _\mu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u_3^{\mathrm{rep}}}{2}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\varphi _\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u_4^{\mathrm{rep}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\varphi _\mu ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u_4^{\mathrm{rep}}}{2}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{u_5^{\mathrm{rep}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}\varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu `$
These terms exactly produce the vertices in FIG. 11, under the condition that each line be connected in the case where the corresponding field has the common replica index. The one-loop diagrams identical with Table 1 are obtained using the replica propagator

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(q)=\frac{\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{q^2+t}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{(q^2+t)^2}.$$
(109)
We can check that the recursion equations identical with those in the main text are derived by this method, if we take the limit $`n0`$ with $`u_j`$s fixedsak .

## Appendix B Critical exponents near the upper critical dimension

In this appendix, we show an outline of computing critical exponents in $`d=6ϵ`$.

Let us introduce the connected and the disconnected two-point function $`g_c(k;\mu )`$ and $`g_d(k;\mu )`$ by the following formulae:

$`\left[\varphi \left(k_1\right);\varphi \left(k_2\right)\right]_{P[\rho ]}g_c(k_1;\mu )\delta \left(k_1+k_2\right)`$
$`[\varphi \left(k_1\right);\varphi \left(k_2\right)]_{P[\rho ]}g_d(k_1;\mu )\delta \left(k_1+k_2\right),`$ (110)
where $`\mu `$ represents a point in the parameter space $`\mu =(t,g_0,\mathrm{},g_5)`$. Since $`g_c(k;\mu )`$ is computed from the sum of connected diagrams that appear in $`\delta t`$, it can be expanded by $`\{g_\mu \}`$. On the other hand, $`g_d(k;\mu )`$ is made of diagrams having two connected components appearing in $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Namely, $`g_d(k;\mu )`$ can be written as

$$g_d(k;\mu )=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{g}_d(k;\mu ),$$
(111)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_d(k;\mu )`$ is expressed as a perturbative series of $`\{g_\mu \}`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transforms as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}L^\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(112)
The correlation functions satisfy the following transformation law:

$`g_c(p;\mu )=L^{2\theta d}g_c(Lp;\mu ^{})`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{g}_d(p;\mu )=L^{2\theta d+\kappa }\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{g}_d(Lp;\mu ^{}).`$ (113)
First, we focus on the critical exponents $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$, which determine the small-momentum behavior of correlation functions at the criticality:

$`g_c(p;\mu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{2\eta }}}\delta \left(p_1+p_2\right)`$
$`g_d(k;\mu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^{4\overline{\eta }}}}\delta \left(p_1+p_2\right).`$ (114)
Suppose that we apply the RGT $`n`$ times at the criticality, where $`n`$ satisfies

$$L^np_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }e_1,$$
(115)
with $`e_1`$ being some $`d`$ dimensional unit vector. The probability distribution $`P`$ approaches the fixed-point distribution, $`P_{}`$, characterized by $`\mu _{}`$. We can evaluate $`g_c(p;\mu )`$ as

$`g_c(p_1;\mu )`$ (116)
$`=`$ $`L^{n(2\theta d)}g_c(L^np_1;\mu ^{(n)})`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p_1}}\right)^{2\theta d}g_c(\mathrm{\Lambda }e_1;\mu ^{}),`$
where $`\mu ^{(n)}`$ specifies the probability distribution of impurities after having applied the RGT $`n`$ times. Comparing the definition (114), we have

$$\theta =\frac{1}{2}\left(2+d\eta \right).$$
(117)
Applying the same argument to $`g_d(p;\mu )`$, we obtain

$$\theta =\frac{1}{2}\left(4+d\kappa \overline{\eta }\right)$$
(118)
and

$$\kappa =2+\eta \overline{\eta }.$$
(119)
The exponents $`\gamma `$ and $`\overline{\gamma }`$ are computed, respectively, from $`g_c(0;\mu )`$ and $`g_d(0;\mu )`$ in the disordered phase. In this case, the RGT is repeated $`n`$ times, where $`L^n`$ is equal to the correlation length $`\xi `$. Then

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`g_c(0;\mu )`$ (120)
$``$ $`g_c(0;\mu _i^{(n)})\xi ^{2\theta d}.`$
Assuming that

$$\xi (tt_c)^\nu ,$$
(121)
we get, with the help of Eq. (117),

$$\chi \left(tt_c\right)^\gamma ,$$
(122)
where

$$\gamma =(2\eta )\nu .$$
(123)
Similar arguments for $`g_d(0;\mu )`$ lead to

$$\overline{\chi }=g_d(0;\mu )(tt_c)^{\overline{\gamma }}$$
(124)
with

$$\overline{\gamma }=(4\overline{\eta })\nu .$$
(125)
Next we consider the exponent $`\alpha `$. The singular part of free energy $`F(\mu )`$ transforms as

$$F(\mu )=F(\mu ^{}),$$
(126)
hence its density $`f`$ transforms as

$$f(\mu ^{})\frac{F(\mu ^{})}{V^{}}=\frac{F(\mu )}{L^dV}=L^df(\mu ),$$
(127)
where $`f(\mu )`$ has the form of

$$f(\mu )=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{f}(\mu )$$
(128)
with $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\mu )`$ having the perturbative series of $`\{g_\mu \}`$. Thus

$$f(\mu )L^{(d+\kappa )n}f(\mu ^{(n)})\xi ^{d+\kappa },$$
(129)
which means that

$$2\alpha =\left(d2\eta +\overline{\eta }\right).$$
(130)
Eq. (129) shows that $`\kappa `$ is identical with the exponent of the singular part of the free energy in a correlation volume $`\xi ^d`$, which is often denoted by $`\theta `$n ; g ; gaahs .

In $`d=6ϵ`$, we can perform the perturbation explicitlyim ; aim ; g  . We begin with the equality

$`\left(k_1^2+t^{}\right)\delta \left(k_1+k_2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[v_2(k_1,k_2)\right]_{P^{}[\rho ]}`$ (131)
$`=`$ $`\left[v_2^{}(k_1,k_2)\right]_{P[\rho ]}.`$
Employing Eq. (67) and denoting

$$\left[\delta v_2(p_1,p_2)\right]_{P[\rho ]}=\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p_1;\mu )\delta \left(p_1+p_2\right),$$
(132)
we get

$`\left[v_2^{}(k_1,k_2)\right]_{P[\rho ]}=`$
$`L^{2\theta d}\left(k_1^2L^2+t+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p_1;\mu )\right)\delta \left(k_1+k_2\right).`$ (133)
Comparing the coefficient of $`k_1^2`$ in Eqs.(131) and (133), we get

$$L^\eta =1+\frac{}{p_1^2}|_{p_1=0}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p_1^2;\mu _{}),$$
(134)
which determines the exponent $`\eta `$. On the other hand, $`\overline{\eta }`$ is computed by a correction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Define $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }(p;\mu )`$ by

$`[v_1^{}\left(k_1\right);v_1^{}\left(k_2\right)]_{P[\rho ]}=`$
$`L^{2\left(\theta d\right)}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }(p_1;\mu )\right)\delta \left(p_1+p_2\right).`$ (135)
We can readily derive

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=L^{2\theta d}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }(0;\mu _{})\right).$$
(136)
Repeating similar calculations for deriving Eq. (134), we obtain

$$L^{2\eta \overline{\eta }}=1+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }(0;\mu _{}).$$
(137)
When $`d=6ϵ`$, we can evaluate $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by the $`ϵ`$ expansion. Here we can ignore the irrelevant parameters $`g_2,\mathrm{},g_5`$. In this case, we have

$$\frac{}{p_1^2}|_{p_1=0}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(p_1^2;\stackrel{~}{\mu })=\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }(0;\stackrel{~}{\mu }),$$
(138)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is a point in the parameter space satisfying $`g_2=\mathrm{}=g_5=0`$. The above equation indicates that

$$\eta =\overline{\eta }$$
(139)
with Eqs. (134) and (137). This equality shows that

$$\kappa =2$$
(140)
from Eq. (119). It derives

$$g_1^{}L^{\kappa +4d2\eta }\left(g_1+\delta g_1\right)=L^{6d2\eta }\left(g_1+\delta g_1\right),$$
(141)
where $`\delta g_1`$ is shown to be identical with that of the $`4ϵ`$ dimensional pure $`\varphi ^4`$ theory, with the coupling constant $`g_1`$aim . Further, the correction term $`\delta t`$ is also equal to that of the pure theory in $`4ϵ`$ dimensions. In this way, we can rederive the result of dimensional reduction near the upper critical dimension.


format: text

text:
# A Numerical Study of Evanescent Fields in Backward-Wave Slabs

## Abstract

Numerical study of evanescent fields in an isotropic backward-wave (BW) (double negative or “left-handed”) slab is performed with the FDTD method. This system is expected to be able to restore all spatial Fourier components of the spectrum of a planar source, including evanescent fields, realizing a “superlens”. The excitation of surface modes on the interfaces of the slab, which is the key process responsible for the sub-wavelength focusing, is numerically confirmed and the time-domain field behavior is studied. In particular, a numerical verification of the amplification of evanescent modes by an isotropic BW slab with $`ϵ_r=\mu _r=1`$ is provided.

preprint: APS/123-QED

The resolution wave limit of any optical device is well known: it is impossible to resolve details smaller than half wavelength. The physical reason of this limitation comes from the fact that evanescent waves in the Fourier spectrum of an object exponentially decay in the direction from the object plane. The decay factor reads $`\alpha =\sqrt{k_t^2k_0^2}`$, where $`k_0`$ is the wavenumber in free space, and $`k_t`$ is the wavenumber of Fourier components in the object plane. The faster the field varies in the object plane, the faster it decays in the direction normal to the object plane. However, it was recently found that a very special kind of lens made of a material with negative relative parameters $`ϵ_r=1,\mu _r=1`$ (at a certain frequency) can “amplify” the evanescent part of the spectrum, thus opening a way to realize a “superlens” with sub-wavelength resolution Pendry (2000); Pendry and Ramakrishna (2002); Ramakrishna et al. (2002).

The reason for this counterintuitive behavior is the fact that for a fixed frequency, an interface between free space and a backward-wave medium with $`ϵ_r=1,\mu _r=1`$ supports surface waves with arbitrary propagation constants along the interface Tretyakov et al. (2003a). Indeed, the eigenvalue equation for surface modes (surface polaritons) on an interface between two isotropic media with parameters $`ϵ_{1,2}`$ and $`\mu _{1,2}`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k_1^2k_t^2}}{ϵ_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k_2^2k_t^2}}{ϵ_2}}=0,\text{TM modes}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1}{\sqrt{k_1^2k_t^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2}{\sqrt{k_2^2k_t^2}}}=0,\text{TE modes}`$ (2)
where indices $`1,2`$ correspond to the two media. If $`ϵ_2=ϵ_1`$ and $`\mu _2=\mu _1`$, both 1 and 2 are identically satisfied for all propagation constants $`k_t`$ along the interface. This means that any evanescent incident plane wave is exactly in phase with one of the eigenmodes of the surface wave spectrum. If the interface is infinite in space, the amplitude of the excited surface wave becomes infinite. The amplification of evanescent fields in backward-wave slabs utilizes this resonant excitation of waveguide modes with large propagation constants. The incident field excites an eigenmode of the slab that is formed by two exponentially decaying field components inside the slab. The spectrum of eigenmodes traveling along a slab can be found from the expression for the reflection or transmission coefficients: they have singularities at the spectral points. For material parameters satisfying $`\mu _r=1`$ and $`ϵ_r=1`$ the transmission coefficient equals simply $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha d)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the decay factor of an evanescent mode from the source and $`d`$ is the slab thickness Pendry (2000). Thus, there is only one eigenmode, and that solution corresponds to infinitely large $`k_t`$ and $`\alpha `$. For larger values of $`\alpha `$ the excitation is closer to the resonance with this eigenmode, and the field amplitude excited in the slab waveguide is larger.

In paper Garcia and Nieto-Vesperinas (2002), however, it has been concluded that if the width of the slab is limited, the restoration of fields is physically meaningless as it involves infinite energy. To clarify the behavior of the evanescent fields in a BW slab or a finite width, we study the fields from a source that creates only evanescent spectrum in the time domain with the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method. Time domain waveforms at suitably chosen observation points and snapshot field distributions are calculated. Our simulations show that the amplification indeed occurs, and it is due to the surface modes excited on the slab boundaries.

In any backward-wave medium the negative permittivity and permeability must be dispersive, and here we adopt the Lorentz model to account for the frequency dispersion. The expressions for the permittivity and permeability are of the form

$`ϵ(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{pe}^2}{\omega _{0e}^2\omega ^2+j\mathrm{\Gamma }_e\omega }}\right),`$
$`\mu (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{pm}^2}{\omega _{0m}^2\omega ^2+j\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\omega }}\right).`$ (3)
Here, $`\omega _{0e}`$ and $`\omega _{0m}`$ are the resonant frequencies of the material and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ are the damping factors, which are assumed to be zero in numerical simulations. This model corresponds to a realization of BW materials as mixtures of conductive spirals or omega particles, as discussed in Tretyakov et al. (2003b). In this artificial material both electric and magnetic polarizations are due to currents induced on particles of only one shape, which provides a possibility to realize the same dispersion rule for both material parameters, as in (3). Note that the medium realized by Smith et. al. is built using different principles Smith et al. (2000). Numerical techniques appropriate to simulations of a material with the above parameters with FDTD can be found in Kärkkäinen and Maslovski (2003); Taflove and Hagness (2000); Young and Nelson (2001). The discretization scheme used in this paper is described in detail in Kärkkäinen and Maslovski (2003).

Let the interface between free space and a BW slab lie along the $`x`$-axis. The excitation plane (a line in our 2D cut) is located at a distance $`d_s`$ from the BW slab of thickness $`d`$. In order to be able to study the behavior of the evanescent field, we excite a BW slab by a source which produces no traveling waves in the direction orthogonal to the source plane. We choose the incident electric field that depends on the $`x`$-coordinate along the interface and on the time $`t`$ in the following manner:

$$E(x,t)=e^{\left(\frac{xx_0}{x_d}\right)^2}r(t)\mathrm{cos}(k_xx\omega _0t).$$
(4)
The ramp function $`r(t)`$ increases smoothly from $`0`$ to $`1`$ over about $`50`$ periods of the cosine function. It is very important that the amplitude grows slowly enough; a rapid increase in the amplitude does not yield a constant amplitude on the second slab interface or in the image plane, because of a wide frequency spectrum of the source. $`x_0`$ is taken to be the $`x`$-coordinate in the middle of the slab and $`x_d`$ determines the rate of decay of the incident electric field amplitude as measured from $`x_0`$. $`\omega _0`$ is the center angular frequency of the excitation. Due to the finite simulation space, we have given a spatial profile to the incident field to obtain a decaying amplitude near the boundaries of the simulation space. The shape of the profile is the normal distribution. The incident fields propagate to $`+x`$-direction along the interface but decay exponentially in the $`y`$-direction normal to the slab boundaries. From the dispersion relation in free space, $`k_x^2+k_y^2=\omega ^2/c^2`$ we see that by choosing $`k_x>\omega _0/c`$ ($`k_y=0`$) in (4) we obtain exponentially decaying fields away from the source in the $`y`$-direction. In our numerical simulations, we use $`k_x=13.62`$ m-1 ($`k_0=9.17`$ m-1).

The problem space is two-dimensional, with the field components $`H_x,H_y`$, and $`E_z`$. The peak of the incident spectrum is at $`\omega _0=2.7510^9`$ rad/s, and the parameters in (3) are the following: $`\omega _{0e}=\omega _{0m}=0.5510^9`$ rad/s, $`\omega _{pe}^2=\omega _{pm}^2=1.48210^{19}`$ (rad/s$`)^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=\mathrm{\Gamma }_m=0`$. With these choices, we obtain $`ϵ(\omega )=\mu (\omega )`$ for all $`\omega `$ and $`ϵ(\omega )/ϵ_0=\mu (\omega )/\mu _0=1`$ at $`\omega =\omega _0`$. Absorbing boundary conditions (ABC) are used to terminate the computational domain at the outer boundaries of the lattice. For simplicity, we have used Liao’s third order ABC Liao et al. (1984), although more sophisticated ABC’s are available. The use of usual ABC’s requires a small gap between the outer boundary of the computational space and the BW material slab, since the Liao’s ABC is not applicable to dispersive media. The reflection from the slab ends is negligible. We excite a slab of thickness $`7\mathrm{\Delta }y=9`$ cm, carrying out the simulations in a $`500\times 60`$ lattice. The source plane is located at a distance $`d_s=3.5\mathrm{\Delta }y=5.25`$ cm from the boundary of the slab (tangential magnetic field components are defined on the interfaces). Determining the precise spatial profile of the source, we take $`x_0=250\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`x_d=x_0/5`$ in (4).

The problem formulation described above enables us to study how the evanescent fields behave in a BW slab and how the surface modes are excited. The numerical results are presented and discussed next.

FDTD simulations have been run to see how the electric fields behave on the slab boundaries and inside the slab. The electric fields created by the source at an early stage of the simulation are seen in Figure 1 a). The snapshot electric field distribution in Figure 1 b) shows that the fields have passed through the slab and the field amplitudes on the slab boundaries are high. The electric field distribution in Figure 1 c) is recorded at a later moment of time. Figure 1 c) reveals that the electric fields are much stronger on the second interface than on the first interface. Evidently, the excited evanescent mode is amplified by the slab. Notice that the source is just reaching its maximum amplitude at $`n=3000`$, although the fields created by the source are not visible in Figure 1 c) due to the scaling.

Next we record the electric fields as a function of time at some observation points. All the observation points are on the line $`x=250\mathrm{\Delta }x`$: one in the middle of the slab, another on the lower interface and the third in air in the image plane, which is located at the distance $`dd_s`$ from the second interface. The electric fields at these points as functions of time are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows that the electric field amplitude is larger on the lower boundary of the slab than inside the slab. The incident electric field amplitude in the source plane is equal to unity. The source and the observation point inside the slab are located at equal distances from the upper slab boundary. Therefore, it is expected that the electric field amplitude in the middle of the slab is equal to $`1`$. We have observed a smaller amplitude in the middle of the slab. The incident electric fields and the fields in the image plane are compared in Figure 3. From the theory, is it expected that the electric field amplitude in the image plane equals the incident electric field amplitude. The fields in the source plane and in the image plane are quite close to each other, see Figure 3.

Let us now compare the results in Figure 2 with analytical results. The evanescent mode decays away from the source plane as a function of distance $`y`$ by a factor of

$$T_1=e^{\sqrt{k_x^2k_0^2}y}$$
(5)
until it hits the upper boundary of the slab. In the slab of thickness $`d`$, the fields are amplified by a factor of

$$T_2=e^{\sqrt{k_x^2k_0^2}d}.$$
(6)
Combining these factors, we obtain the transmission coefficient from the source plane to the second interface as

$$T=e^{\sqrt{k_x^2k_0^2}(dd_s)},$$
(7)
where $`d_s`$ is the distance of the source from the upper boundary of the slab. Substituting the parameters we obtain $`T1.69`$. In the numerical simulations, the maximum ratio of the field amplitudes on the lower interface and on the source plane equals $`1.56`$, being of the same order as the analytical result. The fact that the calculated value is smaller should have been expected, because in the numerical model the incident field amplitude decays from the slab center, while the estimation is for the plane-wave excitation.

We have numerically demonstrated that the evanescent modes are amplified in a lossless frequency dispersive backward-wave slab. The field amplitude at the other side of the slab is larger than the source amplitude, and the “amplification ratio” agrees well with the analytical estimation. The numerically observed electric fields in the image plane approximately reconstruct the source fields above the slab. Thus, our numerical results support the conclusion of paper Pendry (2000) based on the theoretical analysis of an infinite lossless backward-wave slab. The conclusion of Garcia and Nieto-Vesperinas (2002) about infinite field energy required for the restoration of evanescent fields in finite slabs has no theoretical ground (since the slab dimensions are finite and the field amplitudes are finite everywhere if all the wavenumbers in the spectrum are finite) and is in conflict with the results of numerical simulations.


text:
# Partial Wave Analysis of the First Order Born Amplitude of a Dirac particle in an Aharonov-Bohm Potential

## 1 Introduction

The first attempts to calculate the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) scattering amplitude for a scalar particle using perturbation theory  revealed a discrepancy between the first order Born amplitude and the exact amplitude when expanded to the same order.Moreover, the second order Born amplitude turned out to be divergent. These results were attributed  to the fact that the first order Born amplitude based on the Schrödinger Hamiltonian of a scalar particle misses the contribution of the $`l=0`$ partial wave, as it is of second order. The problem manifested itself also in the field theory models of the AB effect with scalar particles, namely the Chern-Simons models. It also appeared in the perturbative calculations in the many-body anyon theories near the bosonic end. It was noted that introducing a contact interaction into the Hamiltonian remedies these problems. Subsequently this interaction was attributed to a spin-magnetic moment interaction. The first order Born amplitude for a Dirac particle was calculated in  and the second order in  where full agreement with the expansions of the exact amplitude to the corresponding order was found. Non-relativistic perturbative calculations within the framework of the field theory models of the AB with spin-1/2 particles suffered no problems.

No partial wave analysis of the first order Born amplitude for a Dirac particle where it would be interesting to investigate the behavior of the $`l=0`$ partial wave was reported in the literature. The main motivation behind this work is to carry out such an analysis.

In section 2, we present a comprehensive partial wave analysis of the first order Born amplitude for non-relativistic scalar and spin 1/2 particles. In section 3, we carry out a partial wave analysis of the Born amplitude of a Dirac particle, using the cylindrical partial modes of the conserved total angular momentum operator. An interesting closed algebra involving the Dirac velocity operator and the angular observables of the theory is discovered, and its consequences pursued.

## 2 Partial wave Born amplitude for non-relativistic scalar and spin-1/2 particles

Before embarking on the treatment of the Dirac particle, we will first carry out the partial wave analysis for the non-relativistic scalar and spin-1/2 particles in the AB potential. While the results of this discussion are generally known and were mentioned in the literature in various contexts, there is no published work that we know of, which contains a systematic and complete treatment. Thus we present it here for completeness and to set the stage for the discussion of the relativistic case.

The AB potential in the cylindrical coordinates reads

$$𝐀=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2\pi \rho }ϵ_\phi ,$$
(1)
where $`\rho =\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$, $`ϵ_\phi `$ is the unit vector along the $`\phi `$ direction and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the flux through the tube. The Schrödinger equation for a scalar particle in this potential, written in cylindrical coordinates, is ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$):

$$\left[\frac{^2}{\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }+\frac{1}{\rho ^2}(\frac{}{\phi }+i\alpha )^2+\frac{^2}{z^2}+k^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=0,$$
(2)
where $`\alpha =\frac{e\mathrm{\Phi }}{2\pi }`$. We take $`0<\alpha <1,`$ as in this work we will be mainly interested in perturbative calculations.

As usual, one can separate the z-dependence of the wavefunction and neglect it all together without any loss of generality. The interaction potential in Eq. (2) can be identified as

$$U=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}(2i\alpha \frac{}{\phi })+\frac{\alpha ^2}{\rho ^2}.$$
(3)
The first order Born scattering amplitude can now be readily constructed, and reads

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\left(\frac{i}{2(2\pi ik)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)e^{i𝐤^{}.𝐱}\left(\frac{2i\alpha }{\rho ^2}\frac{}{\phi }\right)e^{i𝐤.𝐱}\rho 𝑑\rho 𝑑\phi ,$$
(4)
where $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ are, respectively, the wave vectors of the incident (from left) and scattered waves, with $`\left|𝐤\right|=\left|𝐤^{}\right|`$; and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. A calculation of $`f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )`$ yields :

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\alpha \left(\frac{\pi }{2ik}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}},\theta 0.$$
(5)
The exact amplitude first calculated in , and corrected in , for $`0<\alpha <1`$ reads:

$$f(\theta )=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2\pi ik}}(\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha )\frac{e^{i\theta /2}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}$$
(6)
For small $`\alpha `$, one gets,

$$f(\theta )=\left(\frac{\pi }{2ik}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\alpha \mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta }{2}i\alpha \right)+O\left(\alpha ^2\right),\theta 0.$$
(7)
$`f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )`$ given in Eq. (5) clearly misses the -$`i\alpha `$ term of Eq. (7). This discrepancy was attributed to the fact that the first order Born amplitude misses the contribution of the s-partial wave . This can be seen most transparently by looking at the partial Born amplitudes separately, to which we will now turn.

The plane waves in Eq. (4) can be expanded in terms of the conserved orbital angular momentum operator $`L_3`$ by employing the well-known expansion

$$e^{ikx\mathrm{cos}\alpha }=\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}i^le^{il\alpha }J_l\left(x\right),$$
(8)
where $`J_l\left(x\right)`$ are the Bessel functions of order $`l`$. After carrying out the angular integral in Eq. (4), we get:

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\left(\frac{i\alpha }{\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)\underset{l}{}le^{il\theta }\frac{d\rho }{\rho }\left[J_l\left(k\rho \right)\right]^2$$
(9)
Now, it is obvious that the $`l=0`$ partial wave amplitude, i.e., $`f_0^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )`$ vanishes. Integrating over the Bessel functions with the aid of the formula

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\frac{\left[J_l\left(r\right)\right]^2}{r}=\left|2l\right|^1,l0,$$
(10)
we get

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\underset{l}{}{}_{}{}^{}i\alpha \pi \left(\frac{1}{2\pi ik}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sgn}(l)e^{il\theta },$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{sgn}\left(l\right)=\frac{l}{\left|l\right|}`$, and the prime denotes that the $`l=0`$ term is excluded from the summation. Recalling that generally

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\underset{l}{}f_l^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )e^{il\theta },$$

we get the partial amplitudes as:

$$f_l^{\left(1\right)}\left(\theta \right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i\pi \alpha }{\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{sgn}(l),& l0\hfill \\ 0,& l=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
To compare the above partial amplitudes with the exact ones expanded in terms of $`\alpha `$, we note that the exact phase shifts reported in  read (when $`0<\alpha <1),`$

$$\delta _m=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha \hfill & ,\hfill & m0\hfill \\ \frac{\pi }{2}\alpha \hfill & ,\hfill & m<0\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, the exact partial amplitudes become :

$$f_l\left(\theta \right)=(e^{i\mathrm{sgn}\left(l\right)\pi \alpha }1)\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
which, for small $`\alpha `$ reduce to Eq. (12) when $`l0`$. When $`l=0`$, $`f_0\left(\theta \right)`$ reduces to $`\frac{i\alpha \pi }{\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ for small $`\alpha `$, while $`f_0^{\left(1\right)}\left(\theta \right)`$ vanishes!

We turn now to the non-relativistic spin-1/2 particles, where we will see that the $`l=0`$ partial amplitude is non-vanishing. In addition to this, it will turn out that, it is this partial amplitude that leads to the modification of the exact amplitude when the spin is included.

The starting point is the Pauli equation

$$\frac{1}{2m}\left(𝝈𝚷\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(14)
where $`𝚷=\left(𝐩e𝐀\right)`$, and $`𝐀`$ is the AB potential given in Eq. (1), and $`\sigma ^i,i=1,2,3,`$ are the Pauli spin matrices. Suppressing again the $`z`$ degree of freedom we get,

$$\left[\frac{^2}{\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }+\frac{1}{\rho ^2}(\frac{}{\phi }+i\alpha )^22\pi \alpha \sigma _3\delta \left(𝐫\right)+k^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=0.$$
(15)
The first order Born amplitude now reads,

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\left(\frac{i}{2(2\pi ik)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)e^{i𝐤^{}.𝐱}\chi ^{\left(s^{}\right)}\left(\frac{2i\alpha }{\rho ^2}\frac{}{\phi }2\pi \alpha \sigma _3\delta \left(𝐫\right)\right)\chi ^{\left(s\right)}e^{i𝐤.𝐱}\rho 𝑑\rho 𝑑\phi ,$$
(16)
where $`\chi ^{\left(s\right)}`$ and $`\chi ^{\left(s^{}\right)}`$ are the spinors of the incident and outgoing waves, respectively. Expanding the plane waves, and carrying out the integrals as before, we get:

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\underset{l}{}e^{il\theta }\chi ^{\left(s^{}\right)}\left[i\pi \alpha \mathrm{sgn}\left(l\right)\left(1\delta _{l,0}\right)i\pi \alpha \delta _{l,0}\sigma _3\right]\chi ^{\left(s\right)}.$$
(17)
Taking $`\chi ^{\left(s\right)}`$ to be the spin state of a particle polarized along an arbitrary direction specified by a unit vector $`𝐧`$ with polar angle $`\beta `$, and considering transitions to a final state polarized along the same direction, we get the amplitude as:

$$f^{\left(1\right)}(\theta )=\underset{l}{}\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{il\theta }\left[i\pi \alpha \mathrm{sgn}\left(l\right)\left(1\delta _{l,0}\right)i\pi \alpha \delta _{l,0}\mathrm{cos}\beta \right],$$
(18)
$$f_l^{\left(1\right)}\left(\theta \right)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{i\pi \alpha }{\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{sgn}(l),l0\\ \frac{i\pi \alpha }{\left(2\pi ik\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\beta ,l=0.\end{array}$$
(19)
The above results demonstrate that the $`l=0`$ partial amplitude is non-vanishing, the reason being the spin-magnetic moment interaction term. We also note that for our choice of the spin orientations, it is only the s-wave that flips the spin, modifying the unpolarized amplitude only when the incident particle’s spin has a component perpendicular to the solenoid. This result was first reported in  for the exact amplitude, and verified for the first-order Born amplitude in . This is quite natural, as the s-wave is the only partial wave that can feel the solenoid; the other waves being banned by the centrifugal barrier.

## 3 Partial Wave Born Amplitudes for a Dirac Particle

The Hamiltonian for a Dirac particle in an electromagnetic potential is:

$$H=H_{}+H_{int},$$
(20)
where

$$H_{}=𝜶𝐩+\beta m,$$
(21)
and

$$H_{int}=eA_{}e𝜶.𝐀$$
(22)
Here, $`\alpha _i=\beta \gamma _i`$ and $`\beta =\gamma _4`$. The $`\gamma `$’s are the Dirac matrices: $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2g_{\mu \nu }`$.

The first-order Born amplitude for the scattering of a Dirac particle in an electromagnetic field then reads,

$$S_{fi}^{\left(1\right)}=id^4x\overline{\psi }_f^{\left(s^{}\right)}(\stackrel{}{x})\left(e\gamma _\mu A^\mu \right)\psi _i^{\left(s\right)}(x).$$
(23)
With the AB potential as given in Eq. (1), and with the choice of gauge $`A_0=0`$, and suppressing the $`z`$ degree of freedom, and an energy consering $`\delta `$-function, we get

$$S_{fi}^{\left(1\right)}=i\alpha 𝑑\rho 𝑑\phi \overline{\psi }_f^{\left(s^{}\right)}(\stackrel{}{x})\left(\mathrm{sin}\phi \gamma _1+\mathrm{cos}\phi \gamma _2\right)\psi _i^{\left(s\right)}(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(24)
where $`p^{}`$ is the magnitude of the momentum perpendicular to the solenoid. For later convenience, we write $`S_{fi}^{\left(1\right)}`$ as :

$$S_{fi}^{\left(1\right)}=i\alpha 𝑑\rho 𝑑\phi \overline{\psi }_f^{\left(s^{}\right)}(\stackrel{}{x})\left(D^++D^{}\right)\psi _i^{\left(s\right)}(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(25)
where the operators D<sup>±</sup> are defined by:

$$D^\pm =\left(\frac{\gamma _2\pm i\gamma _1}{2}\right)e^{\pm i\phi }.$$
(26)
Prior to carrying out a partial wave analysis of (24), we have to note that an expansion of the incident and outgoing waves in terms of the $`L_3`$ eigenstates will be inconclusive in this case. The reason, physically speaking, is that $`L_3`$ is not a constant of the motion in the Dirac theory, not even (as is well-known) in the free theory. The spinors, $`u_i^{\left(s\right)}`$ and $`u_f^{\left(s\right)}`$ are now functions of the angle $`\phi `$. So, one has to expand the free spinors in terms of the eigenstates of the conserved total angular momentum operator $`J_3=L_3+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}`$. We need first to find these states. These will be taken to be simultaneous eigenstates of the set of commuting operators: $`H_{},J_3,S_3=\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }_3+\frac{\xi p_3}{m}`$ and $`p_3`$ (where $`\xi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)`$) according to:

$$\begin{array}{cc}H_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=& E\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}\\ J_3\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=& \left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}\\ p_3\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=& p_3\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}\\ S_3\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=& \pm s\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}\end{array}$$
(27)
Here, we are diagonalizing the spin operator $`S_3`$ along with the Hamiltonian rather than the more conventional helicity operator. $`S_3`$ is usually used when one has a magnetic field along the $`z`$-axis. In the non-relativistic limit the upper components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ are eigenstates of $`\sigma _3`$. The eigenvalues of $`S_3`$ are

$$s=\pm \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{p_3}{m}\right)^2},$$
(28)
which reduce to $`s=\pm 1`$ when $`p_3`$ is set to zero. The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ that solve the set of equations (27) read

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=\frac{e^{i(Etp_3x_3l\phi )}}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sqrt{2E}\sqrt{2s}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s+1}J_l\left(p^{}\rho \right)\\ ie^{i\phi }ϵ_3\sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s1}J_{l+1}\left(p^{}\rho \right)\\ ϵ_3\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s1}J_l\left(p^{}\rho \right)\\ ie^{i\phi }\sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s+1}J_{l+1}\left(p^{}\rho \right)\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where $`ϵ_3=\mathrm{sgn}(s)\mathrm{sgn}(p_3)`$,$`p^{}`$ is the magnitude of the momentum perpendicular to the solenoidand, and $`s`$ assumes the values given in Eq. (28). Setting $`p_3`$ to zero one gets $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ modes as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}(𝐱)=\frac{e^{i(l\phi )}}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sqrt{2E}\sqrt{2s}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s+1}J_l\left(p^{}\rho \right)\\ ie^{i\phi }ϵ_3\sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s1}J_{l+1}\left(p^{}\rho \right)\\ ϵ_3\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s1}J_l\left(p^{}\rho \right)\\ ie^{i\phi }\sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s+1}J_{l+1}\left(p^{}\rho \right)\end{array}\right),$$
(30)
where $`s=\pm 1`$ now, and the cylindrical partial modes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}(𝐱)`$ are normalized as

$$\rho 𝑑\rho 𝑑\phi \mathrm{\Psi }_{l^{}s^{}}^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}(𝐱)=\frac{1}{p^{}}\delta \left(p^{}p^{}\right)\delta _{l,l^{}}\delta _{s.s^{}}.$$
(31)
The above partial modes are now the correct expansion basis that are to be used in the partial wave analysis. The incident and outgoing waves which are also eigenstates of $`S_3`$ are$`(p_3=0,s=1):`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(s)}(𝐱)=e^{i𝐩_i.𝐱}u_i=\frac{e^{ip^{}\rho \mathrm{cos}\phi }}{\sqrt{4\pi }\sqrt{2s}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s+1}\\ ϵ_3\sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s1}\\ ϵ_3\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s1}\\ \sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s+1}\end{array}\right),$$
(32)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{\left(s\right)}(𝐱)=e^{i𝐩_f.𝐱}u_f=\frac{e^{ip^{}\rho \mathrm{cos}\left(\phi \theta \right)}}{\sqrt{4\pi }\sqrt{2s}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s+1}\\ ϵ_3e^{i\theta }\sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s1}\\ ϵ_3\sqrt{E+sm}\sqrt{s1}\\ e^{i\theta }\sqrt{Esm}\sqrt{s+1}\end{array}\right),$$
(33)
The incident and outgoing waves given in (32) and (33) are normalized as $`d^2x\psi ^{(s^{})}(\stackrel{}{x})\psi ^{(s)}(\stackrel{}{x})=E\delta (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p^{}})`$, which is the Lorentz-invariant normalization.

We can verify the following expansion of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(𝐱)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f(𝐱)`$ in terms of the cylindrical modes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}(𝐱):`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{\left(s\right)}(𝐱)=\hfill & \sqrt{E_i}_l\left(i\right)^l\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}(𝐱)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_f^{\left(s\right)}(𝐱)=\hfill & \sqrt{E_f}_l\left(i\right)^le^{il\theta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}(𝐱).\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
The amplitude $`S_{fi}^{\left(1\right)}`$ now takes the form

$$S_{fi}^{\left(1\right)}=i\alpha E\underset{l}{}\left(i\right)^l\underset{l^{}}{}\left(i\right)^l^{}e^{il^{}\theta },$$
(35)
where

$$=𝑑\rho 𝑑\phi \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{l^{}s^{}}(𝐱)\left(D^++D^{}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}(𝐱),$$
(36)
and $`E=E_i=E_f`$.

Now, the operators $`D^\pm `$, being linear combinations of the $`\gamma `$ matrices will flip the spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$. On the other hand, since $`[J_3,D^\pm ]=[S_3,D^\pm ]=0`$, then $`D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ should still be eigenstates of $`J_3`$ and $`S_3`$. It turns out that $`D^\pm `$ operators together with the angular observables of the theory obey an interesting algebra which leads to a fulfillment of the the above requirements. Let us first note that $`D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ are eigenstates of $`L_3`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}`$ as can be verified directly, though $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ obviously is not

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=& \frac{1}{2}D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}\\ L_3D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=& \left(\begin{array}{c}l+1\\ l\end{array}\right)D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}.\end{array}$$
(37)
It follows from Eq. (37)that

$$\left(L_3+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}\right)D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)+\left(l+1\right)\\ \left(+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\left(l\right)\end{array}\right)D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}=\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)D^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}$$
(38)
as should be. Therefore, the operators $`D^\pm `$ acting on the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ modes, project them into eigenstates of $`L_3`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}`$ such that the sum of the eigenvalues is always equal to the $`J_3`$ eigenvalue; $`l+\frac{1}{2}`$. To get a further insight into the mechanism in action, we first note that the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ modes can be written as linear combinations of the eigenstates of the $`L_3`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}`$ operators. Explicitly:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls=+1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi E}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{E+m}J_l\left(p^{}\rho \right)e^{i(l\phi )}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ i\sqrt{Em}J_{l+1}\left(p^{}\rho \right)e^{i(l+1)\phi }\end{array}\right)\right],$$
(39)
or in a more compact notation

$$|j_3,s=1=|j_3,s=1;l,+\frac{1}{2}+|j_3,s=1;l+1,\frac{1}{2},$$
(40)
where, the quantum numbers ($`l,l+1`$) and ($`\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) above refer to the eigenvalues of $`L_3`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}`$, respectively, and the total orbital angular momentum’s quantum number is always $`j_3`$=$`l+\frac{1}{2}`$. Similarly, for $`s=1`$, we have

$$|j_3,s=1;=|j_3,s=1;l+1,\frac{1}{2}+|j_3,s=1;l,+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(41)
One can verify the following algebra

$$\begin{array}{cc}[L_3,D^\pm ]=& \pm D^\pm \\ [\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2},D^\pm ]=& D^\pm \\ [D^+,D^{}]=& 2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}\right).\end{array}$$
(42)
Note also that

$$\left(D^+\right)^2=\left(D^{}\right)^2=0.$$
(43)
This algebra means that the operators $`D^\pm `$ are some sort of raising and lowering operators in the angular momentum space of the theory. Indeed, denoting the simultaneous eigenstate of $`L_3`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}`$ as $`|l_3,\sigma _3`$, one has:

$$\begin{array}{cc}L_3D^\pm |l_3,\sigma _3=& \left(l_3\pm 1\right)D^\pm |l_3,\sigma _3\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}D^\pm |l_3,\sigma _3=& \left(\sigma _31\right)D^\pm |l_3,\sigma _3.\end{array}$$
(44)
Therefore, $`D^\pm |l_3,\sigma _3=c_\pm |\left(l_3\pm 1\right),\left(\sigma _31\right)`$. The complex numbers $`c_\pm `$ are readily verified to be pure phases which we set to 1. Moreover, note that Eq. (43) implies

$$D^+|l_3,\sigma _3=\frac{1}{2}=D^{}|l_3,\sigma _3=+\frac{1}{2}=0.$$
(45)
Thus, we have

$$D^\pm |l_3,\sigma _3=|l_3\pm 1,\sigma _31.$$
(46)
Going back to our $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ls}`$ functions given in Eqs. (40) and (41), we see now that

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}D^+\\ D^{}\end{array}\right)|j_3,s=1=\left(\begin{array}{c}|j_3,s=1;l+1,\frac{1}{2}\\ |j_3,s=1;l,+\frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(47)
and

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}D^+\\ D^{}\end{array}\right)|j_3,s=1=\left(\begin{array}{c}|j_3,s=1;l+1,\frac{1}{2}\\ |j_3,s=1;l,+\frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(48)
This means that the operators $`D^\pm `$ acting on $`|j_3,s=\pm 1`$ projects out eigenstates of $`L_3`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{2}`$ such that $`l_3+\sigma _3=l+\frac{1}{2}`$ only, i.e. $`J_3`$ eigenstates.

This mechanism of conserving the $`J_3`$ quantum number can be only observed upon employing the partial wave expansion of the Dirac spinors.

Going back to our amplitude; upon substituting the explicit forms of the partial modes of Eq. (30), in Eq. (36), and carrying out the $`\phi `$ integral we finally get,

$$=\left(\pi \right)\frac{\sqrt{E^2s^2m^2}}{2E}\left(2s\right)\delta _{l,l^{}}\delta _{s,s^{}}J_{l+1}\left(p^{}\rho \right)J_l\left(p^{}\rho \right)𝑑\rho .$$
(49)
The above expression clearly conserves $`J_3`$ and $`S_3`$ quantum numbers as it should do. Moreover, the $`l=0`$ partial wave contributes to the amplitude on equal footing with the other partial waves.

The Bessel function integral in Eq. (49) is tabulated for positive values of $`\mathrm{}`$ (formula 6.512-3 in ). For negative values of $`\mathrm{}`$, we make use of the well-known relation valid for integral $`\mathrm{}`$, $`J_{\mathrm{}}(x)=(1)^{\mathrm{}}J_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$, so that we convert the integral over Besssel functions of negative order to an integral over Bessel functions of positive order, getting an overall minus sign. So, we get finally for the first order amplitude,

$$S_{fi}^{(1)}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{2}i\alpha sgn(\mathrm{})e^{i\mathrm{}\theta }$$
(50)
The partial amplitudes are therefore,

$$S_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}i\alpha sgn(\mathrm{}),\mathrm{}=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(51)
Note the appearance of sgn($`\mathrm{}`$) which resulted from the Bessel function integral in Eq. (49). This is same as in the non-relativistic amplitude. To compare our final expression in Eq. (51) with the non-relativistic partial scattering amplitudes, $`f_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}`$ $`(\theta )`$, we note that the S-matrix and the scattering amplitude are related in two dimensions via :

$$(S1)(k,\theta )=\left(\frac{ik}{2\pi }\right)^{1/2}f(k,\theta ).$$
(52)
Expanding $`S(k,\theta )`$ and $`f(k,\theta )`$ in powers of the coupling constant, and imposing the equality for each partial wave, we get

$$f_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(k,\theta )=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{ik}}S_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(k,\theta )$$
(53)
Substituting $`S_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}`$ given in Eq. (51), in Eq. (53), we get the partial scattering amplitudes:

$$f_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(\theta )=(2\pi ik)^{1/2}i\alpha \pi sgn(\mathrm{}),1=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(54)
Eq. (54) compares (up to an overall minus sign) with Eq. (19). The discrepancy for the partial amplitudes $`f_0^{(1)}(\theta )`$ is a result of the difference in the spin orientations of the incident and outgoing particles in the two cases.

## 4 Conclusions

We have demonstrated through an explicit partial wave analysis, that the inclusion of spin into the Hamiltonian of a non-relativistic particle in an AB field leads to a non-vanishing $`l=0`$ first order partial Born amplitude. Moreover, this particular amplitude is the one responsible for the modification of the total amplitude reported in  as a result of the inclusion of spin. A partial wave analysis of the first order Born amplitude for a Dirac particle shows that all the partial amplitudes, including the $`l=0`$ are non-vanishing and contribute equally to the total amplitude. An interesting algebra involving the Dirac velocity operator and the angular observables of the Dirac theory was discovered, and shown to lead to a mechanism for the conservation of the total angular momentum quantum number upon transitions from the initial to the final states at the level of each partial wave.

## Acknowledgment

M.S.S. thanks the Physics Department in the Middle East Technical University, where this work has been carried out for hospitality, and the The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for partial financial support.