text:
# 1 The graph of the periodic sign function ϵ(𝑥⁵), (). Background fields 𝑎₅ and 𝜑 behave as 𝑎_{5𝛾}(𝑥⁵)=𝑎̄_𝛾ϵ(𝑥⁵),𝜑_𝛾(𝑥⁵)=𝜑̄_𝛾ϵ(𝑥⁵).

February 2004

DAMTP-2003-9

US-03-02

hep-th/0302029

Brane-Anti-Brane Solution and
SUSY Effective Potential
in
Five Dimensional Mirabelli-Peskin Model

Shoichi ICHINOSE 111 E-mail address: ichinose@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp   and Akihiro MURAYAMA 222 E-mail address: edamura@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp

Laboratory of Physics, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Shizuoka, Yada 52-1, Shizuoka 422-8526, Japan

$`^{}`$Department of Physics, Faculty of Education, Shizuoka University, Shizuoka 422-8529, Japan

Abstract
A localized configuration is found in the 5D bulk-boundary theory on an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold model of Mirabelli-Peskin. A bulk scalar and the extra (fifth) component of the bulk vector constitute the configuration. $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY is preserved. The effective potential of the SUSY theory is obtained using the background field method. The vacuum is treated in a general way by allowing its dependence on the extra coordinate. Taking into account the supersymmetric boundary condition, the 1-loop full potential is obtained. The scalar-loop contribution to the Casimir energy is also obtained. Especially we find a new type which depends on the brane configuration parameters besides the $`S_1`$ periodicity parameter.

PACS NO: 11.10.Kk, 11.27.+d, 12.60.Jv, 12.10.-g, 11.25.Mj, 04.50.+h
Key Words: Mirabelli-Peskin model, supersymmetric boundary condition, SUSY effective potential, bulk-boundary theory.

1 Introduction Through the development of the recent several years, it looks that the higher-dimensional approach begins to obtain the citizenship as an important building tool in constructing a unified theory. Among many ideas in this approach, the system of bulk and boundary theories becomes a fascinating model of the unification. The boundary is regarded as our 4D world. It is inspired by the M, string and D-brane theories. One pioneering paper, giving a concrete field-theory realization, is that by Mirabelli and Peskin. They consider 5D supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with a boundary matter. The boundary couplings with the bulk world are uniquely fixed by the SUSY requirement. They demonstrated some consistency of the bulk and boundary quantum effects by calculating self-energy of the scalar matter field. Here we examine the vacuum configuration and the effective potential.

Contrary to the motivation of ref., we do not seek the SUSY breaking mechanism, rather we make use of the SUSY-invariance properties in order to make the problem as simple as possible. The SUSY symmetry is so restrictive that we only need to calculate some small portion of all possible diagrams.

In the calculation of the effective potential of the 5D model, we recall that of the Kaluza-Klein model. The dynamics quantumly produces the effective potential which describes the Casimir effect. The situation, however, is different from the present case in the following points: 1) the 4D reduction mechanism; 2) Z2-symmetry; 3) treatment of the vacuum with respect to the extra-coordinate dependence; 4) supersymmetry; 5) characteristic length scales. We will compare the present result with the KK case.

2 Mirabelli-Peskin Model Let us consider the 5 dimensional flat space-time with the signature (-1,1,1,1,1). 333 Notation is basically the same as ref..  The space of the fifth component is taken to be ($`S_1`$), with the periodicity $`2l`$, and has the $`Z_2`$-orbifold condition.

$`x^5x^5+2l(\text{periodicity}),x^5x^5(Z_2\text{-symmetry}).`$ (1)
We take a 5D bulk theory $`_{bulk}`$ which is coupled with a 4D matter theory $`_{bnd}`$ on a ”wall” at $`x^5=0`$ and with $`_{bnd}^{}`$ on the other ”wall” at $`x^5=l`$. The boundary Lagragians are, in the bulk action, described by the delta-functions along the extra axis $`x^5`$.

$`S={\displaystyle d^5x\{_{blk}+\delta (x^5)_{bnd}+\delta (x^5l)_{}^{}{}_{bnd}{}^{}+\text{periodic part}\}}.`$ (2)
We consider both bulk and boundary quantum effects.

The bulk dynamics is given by the 5D super YM theory which is made of a vector field $`A^M(M=0,1,2,3,5)`$, a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, a doublet of symplectic Majorana fields $`\lambda ^i(i=1,2)`$, and a triplet of auxiliary scalar fields $`X^a(a=1,2,3)`$:

$`_{SYM}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}F_{MN}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{tr}(_M\mathrm{\Phi })^2i\mathrm{tr}(\overline{\lambda }_i\gamma ^M_M\lambda ^i)+\mathrm{tr}(X^a)^2+\mathrm{tr}(\overline{\lambda }_i[\mathrm{\Phi },\lambda ^i]),`$ (3)
where all bulk fields are the adjoint representation (its suffixes: $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$) of the gauge group $`G`$. The bulk Lagrangian $`_{SYM}`$ is invariant under the 5D SUSY transformation. This system has the symmetry of 8 real super charges. As the 5D gauge-fixing term, we take the Feynman gauge:

$`_{gauge}=\mathrm{tr}(_MA^M)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_MA_\alpha ^M)^2.`$ (4)
The corresponding ghost Lagrangian is given by

$`_{ghost}=2\mathrm{tr}_M\overline{c}^M(A)c=2\mathrm{tr}_M\overline{c}(^Mc+ig[A^M,c]),`$ (5)
where $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ are the complex ghost fields. We take the following bulk action.

$`_{blk}=_{SYM}+_{gauge}+_{ghost}.`$ (6)
It is known that we can consistently project out $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY multiplet, which has 4 real super charges, by assigning $`Z_2`$-parity to all fields in accordance with the 5D SUSY. A consistent choice is given as: $`P=+1`$ for $`A^m,\lambda _L,X^3`$; $`P=1`$ for $`A^5,\mathrm{\Phi },\lambda _R,X^1,X^2`$ ($`m=0,1,2,3`$). Then ($`A^m,\lambda _L,X^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }`$) constitute an $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet. Especially $`𝒟X^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }`$ plays the role of D-field on the wall. We introduce one 4 dim chiral multiplet ($`\varphi ,\psi ,F`$) on the $`x^5=0`$ wall and the other one ($`\varphi ^{},\psi ^{},F^{}`$) on the $`x^5=l`$ wall: complex scalar fields $`\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$, Weyl spinors $`\psi ,\psi ^{}`$, and auxiliary fields of complex scalar $`F,F^{}`$. These are the simplest matter candidates and were taken in the original theory. Using the $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY property of the fields ($`A^m,\lambda _L,X^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }`$), we can find the following bulk-boundary coupling on the $`x^5=0`$ wall.

$`_{bnd}=_m\varphi ^{}^m\varphi \psi ^{}i\overline{\sigma }^m_m\psi +F^{}F+\sqrt{2}ig(\overline{\psi }\overline{\lambda }_L\varphi \varphi ^{}\lambda _L\psi )+g\varphi ^{}𝒟\varphi ,`$ (7)
where $`_m_m+igA_m,𝒟=X^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We take the fundamental representation for $`\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$. The quadratic (kinetic) terms of the vector $`A^m`$, the gaugino spinor $`\lambda _L`$ and the ’auxiliary’ field $`𝒟=X^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are in the bulk world. In the same way we introduce the coupling between the matter fields ($`\varphi ^{},\psi ^{},F^{}`$) on the $`x^5=l`$ wall and the bulk fields: $`_{bnd}^{}=(\varphi \varphi ^{},\psi \psi ^{},FF^{}in\text{(}\text{7}\text{)})`$. We note the interaction between the bulk fields and the boundary ones is definitely fixed from SUSY.

3 SUSY Boundary Condition, Background Expansion and Generalized vacuum First we point out an important fact about the SUSY effective potential. The 1-loop SUSY effective potential can be calculated only by the scalar loop 444Non-scalar external fields are always put zero from the definition of the effective potential.  up to the $`F`$\- and $`D`$-independent terms in the off-shell treatment. If we trace the origin of this phenomenon, it is simply that the auxiliary fields have the higher physical dimension of $`M^2`$. They cannot have the Yukawa coupling with fermions and vectors. F and D-dependence in the SUSY effective potential is very important to determine the vacuum behaviour. The above fact means that $`dV_{1loop}^{eff}/dD`$ ( or $`dV_{1loop}^{eff}/dF`$ ) is definitely determined only by the scalar loop. Miller, using the above fact, obtained F-tadpole or D-tadpole  (F and D-tadpole correspond to $`dV_{1loop}^{eff}/dF`$ and $`dV_{1loop}^{eff}/dD`$, respectively.) in general 4D SUSY theories. He noticed, if the theory preserve SUSY at the quantum level, the $`F`$ and $`D`$-independent parts in $`V_{1loop}^{eff}`$ can be obtained, instead of calculating diagrams, by a boundary condition on the effective potential. This is because, in the SUSY-preserving case, the effective potential should satisfy: $`V^{eff}(F=0,D=0)=0`$supersymmetric boundary condition–. He confirmed the correctness by comparing his results with the results in the ordinary method. (See ref. for an application to unified models.) We follow Miller’s idea.

Hence we may put, for the purpose of obtaining the 1-loop SUSY effective potential, the following conditions:

$`A^m=0(m=0,1,2,3),\lambda ^i=\overline{\lambda }^i=0,\psi =0,\psi ^{}=0,\lambda _L=0.`$ (8)
Here the extra (fifth) component of the bulk vector $`A^5`$ does not taken to be zero because it is regarded as a 4D scalar on the wall. The extra coordinate $`x^5`$ is regarded as a parameter. Then $`_{blk}`$ reduces to

$`_{blk}^{red}[\mathrm{\Phi },X^3,A_5]=\mathrm{tr}\{_M\mathrm{\Phi }^M\mathrm{\Phi }+X^3X^3_MA_5^MA_5+2g(_5\mathrm{\Phi }\times A_5)\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`g^2(A_5\times \mathrm{\Phi })(A_5\times \mathrm{\Phi })2_M\overline{c}^Mc2ig_5\overline{c}[A^5,c]\}+\text{irrel. terms},`$ (9)
where we have dropped terms of $`2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}X^1X^1=X_\alpha ^1X_\alpha ^1,2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}X^2X^2=X_\alpha ^2X_\alpha ^2`$ as ’irrelevant terms’ because they decouple from other fields. (Note $`\mathrm{tr}(_5\mathrm{\Phi }\times A_5)\mathrm{\Phi }=(1/2)f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }_5\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha A_{5\beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma `$.) While $`_{bnd}`$, on the $`x^5=0`$ wall, reduces to

$`_{bnd}^{red}[\varphi ,\varphi ^{},X^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }]=_m\varphi ^{}^m\varphi +g(X_\alpha ^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha )\varphi _\beta ^{}^{}(T^\alpha )_{\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}}\varphi _\gamma ^{}+\text{irrl. terms},`$ (10)
where we have dropped $`F^{}F`$-terms as the irrelevant terms. $`\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}`$ are the suffixes of the fundamental representation. In the same way, we obtain $`_{bnd}^{red}{}_{}{}^{}[\varphi ^{},\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{},X^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ on the $`x^5=l`$ wall.

Now we take the background-field method to obtain the effective potential. We expand all scalar fields ($`\mathrm{\Phi },X^3,A_5;\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$), except ghosts, into the quantum fields (which are denoted again by the same symbols) and the background fields ($`\phi ,\chi ^3,a_5;\eta ,\eta ^{}`$).

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\phi +\mathrm{\Phi },X^3\chi ^3+X^3,A_5a_5+A_5,\varphi \eta +\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\eta ^{}+\varphi ^{},`$ (11)
We treat the ghosts $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ as quantum fields.

We state a new point in the present use of the background-field method. Usually we take the following procedure in order to obtain the vacuum.

\[Ordinary procedure of the vacuum search\]
1) First we obtain the effective potential assuming the scalar property of the vacuum (as described in (8)) and the constancy of the scalar vacuum expectation values.
2) Then we take the minimum of the effective potential.

In the present case, however, we have the extra coordinate $`x^5`$. We have ”freedom” in the treatment of the vacuum expectation values because $`x^5`$ is regarded as a simple parameter. We require that the background fields may be constant only in 4D world, not necessarily in 5D world. We may allow the background fields to depend on the extra coordinate $`x^5`$. This standpoint gives us an interesting possibility to the higher dimensional model and generalizes the vacuum of the system.

When the background fields ($`\phi ,\chi ^3,a_5;\eta ,\eta ^{}`$) satisfy the field equations derived from (9) and (10), we say they satisfy the on-shell condition. The equations are , in the order of the variations $`(\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ,\delta A_{5\alpha },\delta \chi _\alpha ^3,\delta \varphi _\alpha ^{}^{},\delta \varphi _\alpha ^{}^{})`$, respectively given as,

$`_5Z_\alpha +g(Z\times a_5)_\alpha =0,_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{5\alpha }g(\phi \times Z)_\alpha =0,`$
$`\chi _\alpha ^3+g\{\delta (x^5)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta +\delta (x^5l)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{}\}=0,`$
$`d_\beta (T^\beta \eta )_\alpha ^{}=0,d_\beta (T^\beta \eta ^{})_\alpha ^{}=0,`$
with the definition:
$`Z_\alpha _5\phi _\alpha +g(a_5\times \phi )_\alpha g\{\delta (x^5)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta +\delta (x^5l)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{}\},`$
$`d_\alpha \chi _\alpha ^3_5\phi _\alpha =(\chi ^3_5\phi +ga_5\times \phi )_\alpha ,`$ (12)
where we assume, based on the standpoint of the previous paragraph, $`\phi =\phi (x^5),\chi ^3=\chi ^3(x^5),a_5=a_5(x^5),\eta =\text{const},\eta ^{}=\text{const}`$. The third equation guarantees $`Z_\alpha =d_\alpha `$. In the above derivation, we use the fact that total divergences, in the action, vanish from the periodicity condition. Because we seek the effective potential (an off-shell quantity), we generally do not need to assume the above on-shell condition. 555 However the minimum of the effective potential should always be consistent with the on-shell condition. The on-shell condition becomes important when we restrict the forms of the background fields. (See later discussion.) A new on-shell condition replace it. We should check that the new minimum is consistent with the new on-shell condition.

The quadratic part w.r.t. the quantum fields ($`\mathrm{\Phi },X^3,A_5;\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$) give us the 1-loop quantum effect. This part is given as

$`_{blk}^2[\mathrm{\Phi },A_5,X^3]=\mathrm{tr}\{_M\mathrm{\Phi }^M\mathrm{\Phi }+X^3X^3_MA_5^MA_5\}`$
$`+2g\mathrm{tr}\left[(_5\phi \times A_5)\mathrm{\Phi }+(_5\mathrm{\Phi }\times a_5)\mathrm{\Phi }+(_5\mathrm{\Phi }\times A_5)\phi \right]`$
$`2g^2\mathrm{tr}\left[(a_5\times \phi )(A_5\times \mathrm{\Phi })\right]g^2\mathrm{tr}(a_5\times \mathrm{\Phi }+A_5\times \phi )^2`$
$`2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\{_M\overline{c}^Mc+ig_5\overline{c}[a_5,c]\},`$
$`_{bnd}^2=_m\varphi ^{}^m\varphi +gd_\alpha \varphi ^{}T^\alpha \varphi ig^2[A_5,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\alpha \eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta `$
$`+g(X_\alpha ^3_5\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ig[a_5,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\alpha ig[A_5,\phi ]_\alpha )(\eta ^{}T^\alpha \varphi +\varphi ^{}T^\alpha \eta ),`$
$`_{bnd}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}=\{\varphi \varphi ^{},\eta \eta ^{}\text{in }_{bnd}^2\},`$ (13)
where $`d_\alpha =\chi _\alpha ^3_5\phi _\alpha `$ is the background (4 dimensional) D-field and $`\varphi ^{}T^\gamma \varphi \varphi _\alpha ^{}^{}(T^\gamma )_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}\varphi _\beta ^{}`$. Now we can integrate out the auxiliary field $`X_\alpha ^3`$ in $`_{blk}^2+\delta (x^5)_{bnd}^2+\delta (x^5l)_{bnd}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}`$. We obtain the final ”1-loop Lagrangian”, necessary for the present purpose, as

$`S^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Phi },A_5;\varphi ]={\displaystyle }d^5X[_{blk}^2|_{X^3=0}\delta (x^5)_m\varphi ^{}^m\varphi `$
$`+\delta (x^5)\{gd_\alpha (\varphi ^{}T^\alpha \varphi )g_5\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (\eta ^{}T^\alpha \varphi +\varphi ^{}T^\alpha \eta ){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\delta (0)(\eta ^{}T^\alpha \varphi +\varphi ^{}T^\alpha \eta )^2\}],`$ (14)
where $`\delta (x^5l)`$ part is dropped because we need not to consider the quantum propagation in the $`x^5=l`$ brane. 666 The effect of the $`x^5=l`$ brane is in non-trivial background solutions (vacuum configurations) derived by (12). It quantumly appears in the effective potential as the present quantum effect. See the following description.

4 Mass-Matrix and the Localized Background Configuration We are now ready for the full ( with respect to the coupling order) calculation of the 1-loop (we call this ”1-loop full”) effective potential. The ”1-loop action” can be expressed as

$`S^{(2)}=S^{ghost}+S^{free}+{\displaystyle d^5X}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _\alpha ^{}^{}& \varphi _\alpha ^{}& \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha & A_{5\alpha }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\varphi ^{}\varphi }& M_{\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}}\\ M_{\varphi \varphi }& M_{\varphi \varphi ^{}}\end{array}\right)_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}& \left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }}& 0\\ M_{\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }}& 0\end{array}\right)_{\alpha ^{}\beta }\\ \left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi }& M_{\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi ^{}}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)_{\alpha \beta ^{}}& \left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}& M_{\mathrm{\Phi }A_5}\\ M_{A_5\mathrm{\Phi }}& M_{A_5A_5}\end{array}\right)_{\alpha \beta }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _\beta ^{}\\ \varphi _\beta ^{}^{}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \\ A_{5\beta }\end{array}\right),`$ (30)
$`S^{ghost}={\displaystyle d^5X\left[_M\overline{c}_\alpha ^Mc_\alpha +igf_{\alpha \beta \gamma }_5\overline{c}_\alpha a_{5\beta }c_\gamma \right]}`$
$`S^{free}={\displaystyle d^5X\left[\mathrm{tr}\{_M\mathrm{\Phi }^M\mathrm{\Phi }_MA_5^MA_5\}\delta (x^5)_m\varphi ^{}^m\varphi \right]},`$ (31)
where $`S^{ghost}`$ is decoupled from others, and the components $`M^{}`$s are read from (14).

Now we restrict the form of the background fields in the present 5D approach. The relevant scalars are $`a_5`$ and $`\phi `$ in the bulk. We should take into account the $`x^5`$-dependence and the Z2-property of the background fields.

(i) Brane-anti-brane solution
We take the following forms of $`a_5(x^5)`$ and $`\phi (x^5)`$, which describe the localized (around $`x^5=0`$) configurations and a natural generalization of the ordinary treatment stated before.

$`a_{5\gamma }(x^5)=\overline{a}_\gamma ϵ(x^5),\phi _\gamma (x^5)=\overline{\phi }_\gamma ϵ(x^5)`$
$`ϵ(x^5)=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1& \text{for }2nl<x^5<(1+2n)l\\ 0& \text{for }x^5=nl\\ 1& \text{for }(2n1)l<x^5<2nl\end{array}n𝐙.`$ (35)
where $`ϵ(x^5)`$ is the periodic sign function with the periodicity $`2l`$. 777 We define the values at $`x^5=nl`$ to be $`0`$ in (35) in order to make the function $`ϵ(x^5)`$ piece-wise continuous and also to make it Fourier expandable.  $`\overline{a}_\gamma `$ and $`\overline{\phi }_\gamma `$ are some positive constants. See Fig.1.

It is the thin-wall limit of a (periodic) kink solution and shows the localization of the fields.

The background fields, (35), satisfy the required boundary condition. We show they also satisfy the on-shell condition (12) for an appropriate choice of $`\overline{a},\overline{\phi },\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ and $`\chi ^3`$. The assumed background forms are summarized as

$`\phi _\alpha (x^5)=\overline{\phi }_\alpha ϵ(x^5),a_{5\alpha }(x^5)=\overline{a}_\alpha ϵ(x^5),`$
$`\eta _\alpha ^{}=\text{const},\eta _\alpha ^{}^{}=\text{const},d_\alpha =\chi _\alpha ^3_5\phi _\alpha =\text{const},`$ (36)
where ”const”’s mean some constants which generally may be different. 888 Although $`𝒟_\alpha `$ is made of the bulk fields, it behaves as a boundary field (D-field of $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY multiplet), hence we consider the case that its background value $`d_\alpha `$ is independent of $`x^5`$.  We note the relation

$`_5\phi _\gamma =2\overline{\phi }_\gamma \{\delta (x^5)\delta (x^5l)\},`$ (37)
where $`\delta (x^5)`$ is the periodic delta function with the periodicity $`2l`$. The above equation expresses the localization of the bulk scalar at $`x^5=0`$ and $`x^5=l`$. It is considered to be the field theoretical version of the brane-anti-brane configuration. See Fig.2.

Using this relation, the first two equations of (12) are replaced by

$`_5\{\overline{\phi }_\alpha _5ϵ+gϵ^2(\overline{a}\times \overline{\phi })_\alpha g(\delta (x^5)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta +\delta (x^5l)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{})\}`$
$`+gϵ\{(\overline{\phi }_5ϵ+gϵ^2(\overline{a}\times \overline{\phi })g(\delta (x^5)\eta ^{}T\eta +\delta (x^5l)\eta ^{}T\eta ^{}))\times \overline{a}\}_\alpha =0,`$
$`\overline{a}_\alpha _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ϵgϵ\{\overline{\phi }\times (\overline{\phi }_5ϵ+gϵ^2(\overline{a}\times \overline{\phi })g(\delta (x^5)\eta ^{}T\eta +\delta (x^5l)\eta ^{}T\eta ^{}))\}_\alpha =0.`$ (38)
We note here the following things.

1. When $`\overline{a}_\alpha \overline{\phi }_\alpha `$, the following relations hold: $`(\overline{a}\times \overline{\phi })_\alpha =f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\overline{a}_\beta \overline{\phi }_\gamma =0`$.
2. We may use the equation: $`_5(\delta (x^5)\delta (x^5l))\times \text{const}=0`$, in the field equation on condition that the arbitrary variation $`\delta A_\alpha ^5(x^5)`$, which is used to derive the second equation of (12), satisfies the relation: $`_5(\delta A_\alpha ^5)|_{x^5=0}=_5\delta (\delta A_\alpha ^5)|_{x^5=l}`$. 999 See the next footnote.
3. $`ϵ(x^5)^2=1`$, $`ϵ(x^5)^3=ϵ(x^5)`$, $`_5(ϵ(x^5))=2(\delta (x^5)\delta (x^5l))`$, $`\frac{1}{2}_5\{ϵ(x^5)^2\}=(\delta (x^5)\delta (x^5l))ϵ(x^5)=0`$ .

Then we can conclude that (36) is a solution of the field equation (12) for the following choice.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\overline{a}_\alpha =\overline{\phi }_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{},\chi _\alpha ^3=g(\delta (x^5)\delta (x^5l))\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ,`$ (39)
where $`c`$ is a free parameter. 101010 A special choice, $`c=0`$, is given by : $`\overline{a}_\alpha =0,\overline{\phi }_\alpha =\frac{g}{2}\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta =\frac{g}{2}\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{},\chi _\alpha ^3=g(\delta (x^5)\delta (x^5l))\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta `$. This solution does not require the item 2 below eq.(38).  In this choice $`d_\alpha =0`$ is concluded. Hence the final two equations of (12) are satisfied. We can regard these as the new on-shell condition due to the restriction of the background fields (35). The present vacuum (minimum point of the effective potential) should be consistent with (39).

(ii) Sawtooth-wave solution

We consider another solution.

$`a_{5\gamma }(x^5)=\overline{a}_\gamma \times [x^5]_p,\phi _\gamma (x^5)=\overline{\phi }_\gamma \times [x^5]_p,`$
$`\text{[}x^5\text{]}\text{p}=\{\begin{array}{cc}x^5& l<x^5<l\\ 0& x^5=l\\ \text{periodic}& \text{other regions}\end{array},`$ (43)
where $`[x^5]_p`$ is the sawtooth-wave (periodic linear function) with the periodicity $`2l`$. $`\overline{a}_\gamma `$ and $`\overline{\phi }_\gamma `$ are some positive constants. See Fig.3.

Using (43), with the following relations in $`l<x^5l`$$`_5\phi _\alpha =\overline{\phi }_\alpha 2l\overline{\phi }_\alpha \delta (x^5l),_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\phi _\alpha =2l\overline{\phi }_\alpha \delta ^{}(x^5l);_5a_{5\gamma }=\overline{a}_\gamma 2l\overline{a}_\gamma \delta (x^5l),_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{5\gamma }=2l\overline{a}_\gamma \delta ^{}(x^5l)`$, we can find a solution in the following way. First we consider, as in the previous solution, the case that the two scalars $`\overline{a}_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\phi }_\alpha `$ are ”parallel” in the isospace: $`\overline{a}_\alpha =\text{const}\times \overline{\phi }_\alpha `$. Then the key quantity $`Z_\alpha `$ can be written as

$`Z_\alpha =d_\alpha =\overline{\phi }_\alpha \{12l\delta (x^5l)\}g\{\delta (x^5)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta +\delta (x^5l)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{}\}.`$ (44)
Now we require that $`d_\alpha `$ should be independent of the extra axis $`x^5`$. Then we obtain

$`\eta _\alpha ^{}=\eta _\alpha ^{}^{}=0,\overline{\phi }_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2l}}\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\overline{a}_\alpha ,Z_\alpha =d_\alpha =\overline{\phi }_\alpha ,`$ (45)
where $`c`$ is a free parameter. The first equation of (12) is satisfied. The second equation requires: $`\overline{a}_\alpha _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}[x^5]_p=2l\overline{a}_\alpha _5(\delta (x^5l))=0`$. It means the variation $`\delta A_{5\alpha }`$, which is used to derive the second equation, should satisfy the Neumann boundary condition:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^5}}\delta A_{5\alpha }|_{x^5=l}=0.`$ (46)
(For a special case $`c=0`$ ($`a_{5\alpha }=0`$), the above condition is not necessary.) The third equation gives $`\chi _\alpha ^3=g\delta (x^5l)\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{}`$. The fourth equation of (12) is satisfied. The fifth equation gives the condition on the values of $`\eta _\alpha ^{}^{}`$

$`d_\beta (T^\beta \eta ^{})_\alpha ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2l}}(\eta ^{}T^\beta \eta ^{})(T^\beta \eta ^{})_\alpha ^{}=0.`$ (47)
All on-shell conditions are satisfied by the above choice. Especially, $`d_\alpha =\overline{\phi }_\alpha =\frac{g}{2l}\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ^{}`$. From the form of $`_5\phi _\alpha =\overline{\phi }_\alpha 2l\overline{\phi }_\alpha \delta (x^5l)`$ (see Fig.4), these backgrounds are considered to describe the mixture of a non-localized and a localized (at one end) configurations. The form of the sawtooth-wave solution (Fig.3) is reminiscent of the AdS5 solution of the dilaton in the Randall-Sundrum model although the latter one is Z2 even whereas the present one is Z2 odd.

Taking the localized solution (i), we evaluate $`S^{(2)}`$, (31), furthermore. 111111 The solution (ii) will be treated in a forthcoming paper.  From the periodicity ($`x^5x^5+2l`$) and the Z2 property, the bulk quantum fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X),A_5(X)`$ and $`c(X)`$ can be KK-expanded as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,x^5)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}}x^5),A_5(x,x^5)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_n(x)\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}}x^5),`$
$`c(x,x^5)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{l}}}\left\{c_0(x)+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_n(x)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}}x^5)\right\}.`$ (48)
(The $`Z_2`$-parity of the ghost field is even because it should be the same as that of the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ : $`\delta A^M=^M\mathrm{\Lambda }ig[A^M,\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$. ) Now we use the Fourier expansion of the periodic sign function,

$`ϵ(x)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n+1}}\mathrm{sin}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)\pi }{l}}x\},`$ (49)
and the relation:

$`{\displaystyle _l^l}𝑑x^5ϵ(x^5)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{l}}x^5)\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}}x^5)={\displaystyle \frac{2l}{\pi }}Q_{mn},`$
$`Q_{mn}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{mn}& mn=\text{odd}\\ 0& mn=\text{even}\end{array}.`$ (52)
Noting the above equations and (37), we can express $`S^{(2)}`$ in terms of the 4D integral as follows.

$`S^{(2)}=S^{ghost}+{\displaystyle }d^4x\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _\alpha ^{}^{}& \varphi _\alpha ^{}& \mathrm{\Phi }_{m\alpha }& A_{m\alpha }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{\varphi ^{}\varphi }& _{\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}}\\ _{\varphi \varphi }& _{\varphi \varphi ^{}}\end{array}\right)_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}& \left(\begin{array}{cc}_{\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }}& 0\\ _{\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }}& 0\end{array}\right)_{\alpha ^{}n\beta }\\ \left(\begin{array}{cc}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi }& _{\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi ^{}}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)_{m\alpha \beta ^{}}& \left(\begin{array}{cc}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}& _{\mathrm{\Phi }A}\\ _{A\mathrm{\Phi }}& _{AA}\end{array}\right)_{m\alpha n\beta }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _\beta ^{}\\ \varphi _\beta ^{}^{}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{n\beta }\\ A_{n\beta }\end{array}\right),`$ (68)
where the integer suffixes $`m`$ and $`n`$ runs from 1 to $`\mathrm{}`$, and each component is described as

$`_{\varphi _\alpha ^{}^{}\varphi _\beta ^{}}=^2\delta _{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}+gd_\gamma (T^\gamma )_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}g^2\delta (0)(T^\gamma \eta )_\alpha ^{}(\eta ^{}T^\gamma )_\beta ^{},`$
$`_{\varphi _\alpha ^{}^{}\varphi _\beta ^{}^{}}=g^2\delta (0)(T^\gamma \eta )_\alpha ^{}(T^\gamma \eta )_\beta ^{},_{\varphi _\alpha ^{}\varphi _\beta ^{}}=g^2\delta (0)(\eta ^{}T^\gamma )_\alpha ^{}(\eta ^{}T^\gamma )_\beta ^{},`$
$`_{\varphi _\alpha ^{}\varphi _\beta ^{}^{}}=^2\delta _{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}+gd_\gamma (T^\gamma )_{\beta ^{}\alpha ^{}}g^2\delta (0)(\eta ^{}T^\gamma )_\alpha ^{}(T^\gamma \eta )_\beta ^{},`$
$`_{\varphi _\alpha ^{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{l}}}(T^\beta \eta )_\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}}=_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\beta }\varphi _\alpha ^{}^{}},_{\varphi _\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{l}}}(\eta ^{}T^\beta )_\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}}=_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\beta }\varphi _\alpha ^{}},`$
$`_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{m\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }_{n\beta }}=\{^2+({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}})^2\}\delta _{mn}\delta _{\alpha \beta }g^2f_{\alpha \delta \tau }f_{\beta \gamma \tau }\overline{a}_\delta \overline{a}_\gamma \delta _{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{4g}{l}}f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\overline{a}_\gamma mQ_{mn},`$
$`_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{m\alpha }A_{n\beta }}=g^2f_{\alpha \beta \tau }f_{\gamma \delta \tau }\overline{a}_\gamma \overline{\phi }_\delta \delta _{mn}g^2f_{\gamma \alpha \tau }f_{\beta \delta \tau }\overline{a}_\gamma \overline{\phi }_\delta \delta _{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{l}}f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\overline{\phi }_\gamma mQ_{mn}=_{A_{n\beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{m\alpha }},`$
$`_{A_{m\alpha }A_{n\beta }}=\{^2+({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}})^2\}\delta _{mn}\delta _{\alpha \beta }g^2f_{\alpha \gamma \tau }f_{\beta \delta \tau }\overline{\phi }_\gamma \overline{\phi }_\delta \delta _{mn},`$ (69)
where the kinetic (free) part is also included ($`^2_m^m`$) in the “Mass” matrix and the repeated indices imply the Einstein’s summation convention. $`S^{ghost}`$ is decoupled and is given by

$`S^{ghost}={\displaystyle }d^4x\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_m\overline{c}_{0\alpha }^mc_{0\alpha }+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(_m\overline{c}_{k\alpha }^mc_{k\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{l}})^2\overline{c}_{k\alpha }c_{k\alpha })`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{c}_{n\alpha }(x)[{\displaystyle \frac{2ig}{l}}f_{\alpha \gamma \beta }\overline{a}_\gamma nQ_{nk}]c_{k\beta }(x)\}.`$ (70)
This contribution is treated independently from others.

5 Effective Potential of Bulk-Boundary System The effective potential is obtained from the eigen values of the mass-matrix obtained in (68),(69) and (70). We examine the behaviour for two typical cases.

(A)$`\eta =0,\eta ^{}=0`$(Bulk-Boundary decoupled case)
We look at the potential from the vanishing scalar-matter point. In this case the singular terms, $`\delta (0)`$-terms, disappear and the matrix $``$ decouples to the boundary part ($`\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$) and the bulk part ($`\mathrm{\Phi },A`$). The former part gives the following eigen values.

$`\lambda _\pm =k^2\pm {\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\sqrt{d^2},d^2d_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+d_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+d_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},k^2=k_mk^m,`$ (71)
where we take G=SU(2) and the doublet representation for the boundary matter fields. $`k^m`$ is the 4D momentum. This gives, taking the supersymmetric boundary condition, the following potential before the renormalization:

$`V_{1loop}^{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\{1\frac{g^2}{4}\frac{d^2}{(k^2)^2}\}}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^2}{(k^2)^2}}+O(g^4),`$ (72)
The last perturbative (w.r.t. $`g`$ ) form is logarithmically divergent. It can be checked by the perturbative calculation. It is renormalized by the bulk wave function of $`X^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Here the 4D world’s connection to the Bulk world appears. The quantum fluctuation within the boundary influence the bulk world through the renormalization. The form of (72) is similar to the 4D super QED. We see the present model produces a desired effective potential on the brane.

The bulk part of $``$ and the ghost part do not depend on the field $`d`$. They and their eigenvalues depend only on the brane parameters, $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{\phi }`$, and the size of the extra space, $`l`$. In the SUSY boundary condition, their contribution to the vacuum energy is zero. The scalar loop contribution is expected to be cancelled by the quantum effect of the non-scalar fields. Let us, however, examine the scalar-loop contribution to the Casimir energy (potential). General case is technically difficult. We consider the large circle limit$`\widehat{g}^2\frac{g^2}{l}=\text{fixed}1,\widehat{a}=\sqrt{l}\overline{a}=\text{fixed},\widehat{\phi }=\sqrt{l}\overline{\phi }=\text{fixed},l\mathrm{}`$. This is the situation where the circle is large compared with the inverse of the domain wall height. ($`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{\phi }`$ have the dimension of $`M`$. ) We notice, in this limit, $`Q_{mn}`$-terms disappear. In the ”propagator” terms of the bulk quantum fields, KK-mass terms $`m^2\pi ^2/l^2`$ disappear. All KK-modes equally contribute to the vaccum energy. The eigen values of the bulk part of $``$ can be easily obtained. In particular, for the special case $`\widehat{a}=0`$, the nontrivial factor is only $`k^2+\widehat{g}^2\widehat{\phi }^2`$. Hence each KK-mode equally contributes to the vacuum energy as

$`V_{1KKmode}^{eff}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\{1+\widehat{g}^2\frac{\widehat{\phi }^2}{k^2}\}},`$ (73)
This quantity is quadratically divergent. After an appropriate normalization, the final form should become, based on the dimensional analysis, the following one.

$`V_{1loop}^{eff}=\widehat{g}^2(c_1{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\phi }^2}{l^2}}+c_2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}^2}{l^2}}+c_3{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}\widehat{\phi }}{l^2}})+O(\widehat{g}^4),`$ (74)
where $`c_1,c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ are some finite constants which are calculable after we know the bulk quantum dynamics sufficiently. This is a new type Casimir energy. This is the reason why we have examined the scalar-loop contribution. Comparing the ordinary one (76) explained soon, it is new in the following points: 1) it depends on the brane parameters $`\widehat{\phi }`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ besides the extra-space size $`l`$; 2) it depends on the gauge coupling $`\widehat{g}`$; 3) it is proportional to $`1/l^2`$.

We expect the above result of Casimir energy are cancelled by the spinor and vector-loop contribution in the present SUSY theory. The unstable Casimir potential do not appear in SUSY theory.

(B)$`\overline{a}=0,\overline{\phi }=0`$
In this case, $`Q_{mn}`$-terms disappear and we do have no localized (brane) configuration. The bulk background configuration is trivial: $`a_5(x^5)=0,\phi (x^5)=0`$. 5D bulk quantum fields fluctuate with the periodic boundary condition in the extra space. This is similar to the 5D Kaluza-Klein case mentioned in the introduction. The eigen values for the bulk part, $`c(X),\overline{c}(X),\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ and $`A_5(X)`$ are commonly given by,

$`\lambda _n=k^2({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{l}})^2,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{},`$ (75)
The eigen values are basically the same as the KK case . They depend only on the radius (or the periodicity) parameter $`l`$. It gives the scalar-loop contribution to the Casimir potential. From the dimensional analysis, after the renormalization, it has the following form.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}V_{scalar}^{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{\text{const}}{l^5}}.`$ (76)
We expect again this contribution is cancelled by the spinor and vector fields.

The eigenvalues for the boundary part is obtained as a complicated expression involving the following terms:

$`S\eta ^{}\eta ,d^2=d_\alpha d_\alpha ,dVd_\alpha \eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta ,V^2(\eta ^{}T^\alpha \eta )^2.`$ (77)
We have the full expression in the computer file. In the manipulation of eigen-values search (determinant calculation), we face the following combination of terms.

$`\delta (0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi m/l)^2}{\lambda k^2(\pi m/l)^2}}.`$ (78)
The first term comes from the singular terms in $``$, the second from the KK-mode sum. Using the relation$`_{m𝐙}1=2l\delta (0)`$, the above sum leads to a regular quantity.

$`\delta (0)|_{sm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l}}{\displaystyle \underset{m𝐙}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +k^2}{\lambda +k^2+(\pi m/l)^2}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\lambda +k^2}\mathrm{coth}\{l\sqrt{\lambda +k^2}\}& \lambda >k^2\\ \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\lambda k^2}\mathrm{cot}\{l\sqrt{\lambda k^2}\}& k^2>\lambda \end{array}.`$ (81)
We have confirmed this ”smoothing” phenomenon occurs at the 1-loop full level.

For some interesting cases, we present the explicit forms of the eigenvalues.
(i) $`\eta =\eta ^{}=0(dV=0,V^2=0,S=0)`$
This is a special case of (A), the decoupled case.

$`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _+,\lambda _3=\lambda _4=\lambda _{},\lambda _\pm =k^2\pm {\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\sqrt{d^2}.`$ (82)
It is consistent with Case (A).

(ii) $`dV0`$, others=$`0`$ ($`S=0,d^2=0,V^2=0`$)
Interesting eigenvalues come from the solutions of the following equation.

$`(\lambda +k^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{2}}dV{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda +k^2}}{2}}\mathrm{coth}l\sqrt{\lambda +k^2}=0.`$ (83)
To confirm the correctness, we look at the perturbative aspect of this 1-loop full result. First expanding the above expression by $`1/k^2`$ (propagator expansion), and then taking the terms up to the 1st order w.r.t. $`g^2/l`$, we obtain

$`(\lambda +k^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{4}}dV\sqrt{k^2}\mathrm{coth}l\sqrt{k^2}=0.`$ (84)
Two eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ satisfy

$`\lambda _1\lambda _2=(k^2)^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{4}}dV{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k^2}\mathrm{coth}l\sqrt{k^2}}{(k^2)^2}}\right).`$ (85)
This result is consistent with the perturbative result (the vertex correction on the boundary) up to the order of $`g^3`$. The full-order eigenvalues, the solutions of (83), correspond to the 1-loop full effective potential.

6 Conclusion We have analyzed the effective potential of the Mirabelli-Peskin model. The explicit forms are obtained for some cases. An interesting localized configuration (solution) is found in the bulk scalar and the extra-component of the bulk vector when we solve the field equation (on-shell condition). The vacuum is generalized in connection with the treatment of the extra axis. We treat $`x^5`$ as a parameter which is independent of the 4D world. The important role of the D-field, $`𝒟_\alpha =X_\alpha ^3_5(A)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$, in the 4D world is confirmed. In this SUSY invariant theory, the Casimir force vanishes. Its scalar-loop contribution is obtained from the explicit matrix elements depending on the boundary parameters $`\overline{a}`$, $`\overline{\phi }`$ and $`l`$. Besides the ordinary type, we find a new type form of the Casimir energy which is characteristic for the brane model. When SUSY is broken in some mechanism, the new type potential could become an important distinguished quantity of the bulk-boundary system from the ordinary KK system.

We hope the present result improves the understanding of the quantum dynamics of the bulk-boundary system.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank N. Sakai for valuable comments when this work, still at the primitive stage, was presented at the Chubu Summer School 2002 (Tsumagoi, Gunma, Japan, 2002.8.30-9.2). A part of this work was done when one of the author (S.I.) stayed at DAMTP(Univ. of Cambridge,2002.11.22-2003.2.10). He thanks G.W. Gibbons and G. Silva for comments and discussions. The hospitality there is acknowledged. He also thanks the governor of the Shizuoka prefecture for the financial support.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

$`CP`$ violation for pseudoscalar mesons is a well detected experimental fact which is parametrized, in the quark framework, by a suitable mixing matrix . It stays a phenomenon per se, which has been lacking a fundamental understanding, or, at least, a connection with other properties of field theory.

In the framework of a renormalizable quantum field theory, indirect $`CP`$ violation for neutral kaons (or similar systems) is shown in this letter to be directly connected to the anomalous dimension of the neutral kaon fields, and, so, to scaling violations.

The basic remark which straightforwardly leads to this result is that the physical (different) masses $`m_S`$ and $`m_L`$ of the neutral mesons are not the roots of the characteristic equation of a single constant effective mass matrix , but are the poles of the full renormalized propagator of this binary system. The components of each mass eigenvector are functions of the momentum $`p`$ which must be evaluated at the solutions of the self-consistent equations $`p^2=\lambda (p^2)`$, the $`\lambda (p^2)`$’s being the eigenvalues of the full renormalized self-energy matrix. Their evolution in the (small) interval $`p^2[m_S^2,m_L^2]`$ is accordingly driven by renormalization group equations, with the consequence that no more than one of them can be a $`CP`$ eigenstate as soon as they scale with anomalous dimensions.

## 2 Demonstration

### 2.1 Physical masses and eigenstates

Let $`M^{(2)}(p^2)`$, with dimension $`[mass]^2`$, be the full renormalized self-energy $`2\times 2`$ matrix for the system of neutral kaons in the $`(K^0,\overline{K^0})`$ basis; the corresponding full inverse propagator writes

$$L(p^2)=𝕀p^2M^{(2)}(p^2),𝕀=diag(1,1).$$
(1)
Accounting for unstable kaons requires $`M^{(2)}(p^2)`$ to be a complex non-hermitian matrix, but we insist that, for all $`p^2`$, it is normal 111i.e. it commutes with its hermitian conjugate $`[M,M^{}]=0`$. such that its right- and left-eigenvectors coincide  222No physically satisfying interpretation of a mismatch between the two could ever be given; that our result fits in the case of a normal matrix is thus welcome. ; we demand furthermore that it satisfies the condition for $`CPT`$ invariance, i.e. its two diagonal elements are identical ; using the more convenient notation $`z`$ for the complex $`p^2`$, $`M^{(2)}`$ writes accordingly

$$M^{(2)}(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a(z)& b(z)\\ c(z)& a(z)\end{array}\right),withb(z)\overline{b}(\overline{z})=c(z)\overline{c}(\overline{z}).$$
(2)
The physical masses 333They are complex as soon as the kaons are unstable . $`z_1m_S^2`$ and $`z_2m_L^2`$ are solutions of the self consistent equations $`z\lambda _\pm (z)=0`$, $`\lambda _\pm (z)`$ being the two solutions $`\lambda _\pm (z)=a(z)\pm \sqrt{b(z)c(z)}`$ of $`det(M^{(2)}(z)\lambda 𝕀)=0`$, such that one has 444Of course, which is attributed to which is irrelevant.

$$forK_S:z_1=a(z_1)\sqrt{b(z_1)c(z_1)},forK_L:z_2=a(z_2)+\sqrt{b(z_2)c(z_2)}.$$
(3)
The existence of other (spurious) solutions is irrelevant for what follows; one only needs $`z_1z_2`$.

The components of the corresponding eigenvectors $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_\pm (z)\\ v_\pm (z)\end{array}\right)`$ of $`M^{(2)}(z)`$ (and of $`L(z)`$) satisfy

$$\frac{v_\pm (z)}{u_\pm (z)}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{c(z)}{b(z)}}=\pm \frac{za(z)}{b(z)},$$
(4)
and, so, in particular for the physical states 555The other eigenvectors $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_+(z_1)\\ v_+(z_1)\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{}(z_2)\\ v_{}(z_2)\end{array}\right)`$ respectively of $`M^{(2)}(z_1)`$ and $`M^{(2)}(z_2)`$ are spurious ; they however still satisfy (4).

$$forK_S:\frac{v_{}(z_1)}{u_{}(z_1)}=\sqrt{\frac{c(z_1)}{b(z_1)}}=\frac{z_1a(z_1)}{b(z_1)};forK_L:\frac{v_+(z_2)}{u_+(z_2)}=+\sqrt{\frac{c(z_2)}{b(z_2)}}=+\frac{z_2a(z_2)}{b(z_2)}.$$
(5)
The condition for the normality of $`M^{(2)}`$ (see at the right of (2)) entails in particular

$$\left|\frac{v_\pm (z)}{u_\pm (z)}\right|^2=1.$$
(6)
### 2.2 Renormalization group equations

We want to connect $`v_+(z_2)/u_+(z_2)`$ to $`v_{}(z_1)/u_{}(z_1)`$.

The elements of the renormalized full self-energy matrix $`M^{(2)}`$, that we noted $`a(z)`$, $`b(z)`$ and $`c(z)`$ depend in reality not only on the external momentum $`p`$, but also of (dimensionless) coupling constants $`g_i`$, masses $`m_j`$, (dimensionless) gauge parameters $`\xi _k`$, and of a renormalization scale $`\mu `$; this is why, in the following, we adopt instead the notation $`a(p,g_i,m_j,a_k,\mu )`$ etc, with $`z=p^2`$. Defining $`y_j=\frac{m_j}{\mu }`$ and $`t=\mathrm{ln}x`$, $`a(p,g_i,m_j,a_k,\mu )`$ satisfies the renormalization group equation (see appendix for the demonstration)

$`({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\beta _i(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ)g_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{g_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(1+\gamma _j(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ))y_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_j}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\beta _{ak}(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi _k}}`$ (7)
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _{K^0}(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ)+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ)))a(e^tp,g_i,y_j,\xi _k,\mu )=0,`$ (8)
where the $`\beta _i`$’s, $`\gamma _j`$’s, $`\beta _{ak}`$’s, and the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _{K^0}`$ and $`\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}`$ of the mesons are defined by

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{dg_i}{d\mu }}=g_i\beta _i(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ),{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm_j}{d\mu }}=\gamma _j(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ),\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _k}{d\mu }}=\beta _{ak}(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{Z_{K^0}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dZ_{K^0}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}{d\mu }}=\gamma _{K^0}(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ),{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{Z_{\overline{K^0}}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dZ_{\overline{K^0}}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}{d\mu }}=\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}(g_i,y_j,\xi _k,ϵ);`$ (10)
(11)
$`Z_{K^0}(\mu ,\mathrm{})`$ and $`Z_{\overline{K^0}}(\mu ,\mathrm{})`$ are the renormalization constants for the wave functions of $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$ 666The renormalized and bare elements of $`M^{(2)}`$ are connected by $`a(\mu ,\mathrm{})=\sqrt{Z_{K^0}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}\sqrt{Z_{\overline{K^0}}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}a_0,b(\mu ,\mathrm{})=Z_{K^0}(\mu ,\mathrm{})b_0,c(\mu ,\mathrm{})=Z_{\overline{K^0}}(\mu ,\mathrm{})c_0`$. . The solution of (8) writes ($`x=e^t`$)

$$a(e^tp,g_i,y_j,\xi _k,\mu )=x^2a(p,\overline{g_i},\overline{y_j},\overline{\xi _k},\mu )e^{_0^t𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _{K^0}(\overline{g_i}(t^{},g_i),\overline{y_j}(t^{},g_i),\overline{\xi _k}(t^{},g_i),ϵ)+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}(\overline{g_i}(t^{},g_i),\overline{y_j}(t^{},g_i),\overline{\xi _k}(t^{},g_i),ϵ)\right)},$$
(12)
where the “running” $`\overline{g_i}`$, $`\overline{y_j}`$ and $`\overline{\xi _k}`$ are defined by (at the extreme right are the initial conditions)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{g_i}(t,g_j)}{dt}}=\overline{g_i}\beta (\overline{g_i});\overline{g_i}(0,g_j)=g_i;`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{x_j}(t,g_i)}{dt}}=\left(1+\gamma _j(\overline{g_i})\right)\overline{x_j};\overline{x_j}(0,g_i)=x_j;`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\xi }_k(t,g_i)}{dt}}=\beta _{ak}(\overline{g_i});\overline{\xi _k}(0,g_i)=\xi _k.`$ (15)
The equations for $`b`$ and $`c`$ are similar to (8) with the only replacement of $`\frac{\gamma _{K^0}+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}}{2}`$ respectively by $`\gamma _{K^0}`$ and $`\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}`$.

Let $`x=p/p_1`$. Since $`z=p^2`$ and $`p_1^2=m_S^2`$, (12) yields (somewhat lightening the notations)

$`a(xp_1,g_i,y_j,\xi _k,\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{z}{m_S^2}}a(p_1,\overline{g_i},\overline{y_j},\overline{\xi _k})e^{_0^{(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(z/m_S^2)}𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{K^0}(\overline{g_i}(t^{},g_i),\mathrm{})+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}(\overline{g_i}(t^{},g_i),\mathrm{}))},`$ (16)
$`b(xp_1,g_i,y_j,\xi _k,\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{z}{m_S^2}}b(p_1,\overline{g_i},\overline{y_j},\overline{\xi _k})e^{_0^{(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(z/m_S^2)}𝑑t^{}\gamma _{K^0}(\overline{g_i}(t^{},g_i),\mathrm{})}.`$ (17)
In particular, for $`z=z_2=m_L^2`$, using (5), one gets (with a still more lightened notation)

$$\frac{v_+(z_2)}{u_+(z_2)}=\frac{z_1a(z_1)e^{_0^{(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(m_L^2/m_S^2)}𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{K^0}(t^{})+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}(t^{}))}}{b(z_1)e^{_0^{(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(m_L^2/m_S^2)}𝑑t^{}\gamma _{K^0}(t^{})}}.$$
(19)
### 2.3 The case of a small mass splitting. Result

Now, we use $`m_L^2/m_S^21`$ and develop the exponentials at the first non-trivial order to get 777We use (4), which yields at $`z=z_1`$: $`\frac{z_1a(z_1)}{b(z_1)}=\frac{v_+(z_1)}{u_+(z_1)}=\frac{v_{}(z_1)}{u_{}(z_1)}`$.

$$\frac{v_+(z_2)}{u_+(z_2)}\frac{v_+(z_1)}{u_+(z_1)}\left(1+\frac{a(z_1)}{z_1a(z_1)}\delta _a+\delta _b\right)=\frac{v_{}(z_1)}{u_{}(z_1)}\left(1+\frac{a(z_1)}{z_1a(z_1)}\delta _a+\delta _b\right),$$
(20)
with $`\delta _a=_0^{(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(m_L^2/m_S^2)}dt^{}(1/2)(\gamma _{K^0}(t^{})+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}(t^{})`$ and $`\delta _b=_0^{(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(m_L^2/m_S^2)}𝑑t^{}\gamma _{K^0}(t^{})`$.

In the small interval $`[0,(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(m_L^2/m_S^2)]`$, $`\gamma _{K^0}`$ and $`\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}`$ are expected to keep practically constant, such that $`\delta _a(1/4)(\gamma _{K^0}+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}})\mathrm{ln}(m_L^2/m_S^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2/4m_K^2)(\gamma _{K^0}+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}),\delta _b(1/2)\gamma _{K^0}\mathrm{ln}(m_L^2/m_S^2))(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2/2m_K^2)\gamma _{K^0}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2=m_L^2m_S^2`$.

Using again $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2}{m_K^2}1`$, we can approximate, using (3), $`a(z_1)a(z_2)(z_1+z_2)/2m_K^2`$ and, consequently $`z_1a(z_1)\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2/2`$, such that $`\frac{v_+(z_2)}{u_+(z_2)}\frac{v_{}(z_1)}{u_{}(z_1)}\left(1\frac{\gamma _{K^0}+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2}{2m_K^2}\gamma _{K^0}\right)`$. If the $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K^0}`$ fields, related in quantum field theory by hermitian conjugation, scale accordingly with opposite anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _{K^0}+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}=0`$, the previous equation rewrites ($`z_2=m_L^2`$ and $`z_1=m_S^2`$) 888One gets the same result by studying the scaling of $`\sqrt{c(z)/b(z)}`$ according to (4).

$$\frac{v_+}{u_+}(m_L^2)\frac{v_{}}{u_{}}(m_S^2)\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2}{2m_K^2}\gamma _{K^0}\right);$$
(21)
indirect $`CP`$ violation is consequently an unavoidable dynamical phenomenon in renormalizable theories for mass split interacting neutral mesons with anomalous scaling; suppose indeed that one of the mass eigenstate is a $`CP`$ eigenstate, i.e. either $`v_+(z_2)/u_+(z_2=\pm 1`$ or $`v_{}(z_1)/u_{}(z_1)=\pm 1`$; in order to satisfy the constraint (6), the other ratio must acquire an imaginary part, which forbids the corresponding state to be a $`CP`$ eigenstate.

## 3 Conclusion

A general framework has been provided for the study of $`CP`$ violation, which is not limited to neutral kaons and extends to other species of particles; all and only those of the fundamental interactions which give rise to violations of scaling are expected to contribute. Furthermore, by showing that the renormalized mass matrix can be normal, all problems arising from the difference between right- and left-eigenstates have been wiped out.

## Appendix A Demonstration of equation (8)

The argumentation follows classical literature (see for example ). Since $`a(p,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu )`$ has dimension $`[mass]^2`$, it satisfies

$$a(xp,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu )=\mu ^2\stackrel{~}{a}(x^2\frac{z}{\mu ^2},g_i,\frac{m_j}{\mu },\xi _k),$$
(22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ is an homogeneous function of degree $`0`$ in $`x`$, $`m_j`$, $`\mu `$; similar equations for $`b`$ and $`c`$ define the homogeneous functions $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. Euler’s theorem applied to $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ yields

$$\left(x\frac{}{x}+\underset{j}{}m_j\frac{}{m_j}+\mu \frac{}{\mu }2\right)a(xp,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu )=0,$$
(23)
and similar equations for $`b`$ and $`c`$. On the other side, since the bare quantities $`a_0`$, $`b_0`$ and $`c_0`$ do not depend on $`\mu `$

$$\mu \frac{}{\mu }a_0(p,g_{i0},m_{j0},a_{k0},ϵ)=0,etc$$
(24)
where we have supposed the regularization done by going to $`4ϵ`$ dimensions. This yields (see notations and footnote in subsection 2.2)

$`\left(\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{dg_i}{d\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{g_i}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm_j}{d\mu }}m_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_j}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _k}{d\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi _k}}\right)a(p,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu )`$ (25)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{Z_{K^0}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dZ_{K^0}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}{d\mu }}a(p,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{Z_{\overline{K^0}}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dZ_{\overline{K^0}}(\mu ,\mathrm{})}{d\mu }}a(p,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu )\right),`$ (26)
(27)
which rewrites

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\underset{i}{}\beta _ig_i\frac{}{g_i}\underset{j}{}\gamma _jm_j\frac{}{m_j}+\underset{k}{}\beta _{ak}\frac{}{\xi _k}\right)a(p,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu )=\frac{\gamma _{K^0}+\gamma _{\overline{K^0}}}{2}a(p,g_i,m_j,\xi _k,\mu ).$$
(28)
(28) also applies to $`a(xp,\mathrm{},\mu )`$; replacing there $`\mu a(xp,\mathrm{},\mu )/\mu `$ by its value extracted from (23) gives equation (8).


text:
# The First Measurement of Spectral Lines in a Short-Period Star Bound to the Galaxy’s Central Black Hole: A Paradox of Youth

## 1 Introduction

Ten-meter class ground-based telescopes present the opportunity to obtain an unprecedented view of the Galactic Center in terms of both sensitivity and angular resolution. Initial studies of the Galaxy’s central cluster at high angular resolution relied upon speckle imaging techniques. This first round of experiments was able to measure stellar motions on the plane of the sky, yielding estimates of the projected velocities (Eckart & Genzel 1996; Ghez et al. 1998), projected accelerations (Ghez et al. 2000; Eckart et al. 2002), and three-dimensional orbital motions (Schödel et al. 2002; Ghez et al. 2003), which each provided a successively stronger case for a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way and its association with the unusual radio source Sgr A\* (Lo et al. 1985).

The advent of Adaptive Optics (AO) makes it practical to obtain spectroscopic observations of individual stars in the central $`1{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 1^{\prime \prime }`$ of the Galaxy. Such measurements in principle provide the critical third dimension of motion, as well as astrophysical information about these high velocity stars, such as spectral type and rotational velocity. While speckle spectroscopy was attempted by Genzel et al. (1997), it was limited in spectral resolution to R$``$35 and by source confusion. The first AO-assisted spectroscopy of the Galactic Center was attempted with significantly higher spectral resolution, R$``$2,000 (Gezari et al 2002). Nonetheless, neither of these experiments yielded any line detections in the high velocity ($`>`$1000 km/s) stars, indicating that the spectral lines are weak and would require either even higher spectral resolution or higher SNR (or possibly both) to be detected.

In this paper we report the first measurement of spectral absorption lines in one of the high velocity stars, S0-2. Section 2 describes the observations, Section 3 details the results, and Section 4 discusses how these observations improve the orbital solutions and raises questions regarding the origin of this apparently massive, young star.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

On the nights of 2002 June 2-3 (UT), near-infrared spectra of S0-2 were obtained with the W. M. Keck 10 m telescope’s Adaptive Optics system (Wizinowich et al. 2000) and NIRC2, the facility near-infrared instrument (Matthews et al., in prep). AO corrections were made with a R=13.2 mag natural guide star (USNO 0600-28579500) located 30” away from S0-2. Using NIRC2 with its medium resolution grism, 2 pixel slit, and medium resolution pixel scale of $``$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$02/pixel, we achieved a spectral resolution of R$``$4000 ($``$75 km/s) and a spectral range of 0.3 $`\mu m`$ across the 1024x1024 array. On the first night, the K-bandpass filter was used with the slit positioned such that the spectral coverage was 2.04–2.30 $`\mu `$m. Seven 20 min exposures were obtained with S0-2 at various locations on the slit. HD 195500 (spectral type A1V) and HD 193193 (spectral type G2V) were observed as calibration sources at the same locations on the slit as S0-2. On the second night, the setup was altered somewhat to help identify and minimize systematic effects, such as fringing, which might complicate any line detections. The filter was changed to the K’-bandpass, the slit was moved, giving a spectral coverage of 2.03-2.29 $`\mu `$m, and the calibration sources observed were HD 190285 (spectral type A0V) and HD 193193. Four spectra of S0-2 were obtained with this set-up. Because of the high stellar densities at S0-2’s location, a dark patch of sky 1hr East of Sgr A\* was observed on both nights to measure a purely sky background. The wavelength solution was obtained by identifying a set of 16 OH emission lines in the spectra of the sky and by fitting a low-order polynomial function to the location of those lines throughout the detector along the spatial direction. The accuracy of this process is $`9`$ km/s, as measured by the dispersion of the residual of the fit.

The sky-subtracted spectrum of S0-2 in each dataset was extracted over a 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$06 spatial interval along the slit and divided by the spectrum of the A-type star, extracted over the same window, to properly correct for the instrumental spectral response. Prior to this step, the spectrum of the G-type star was used to remove the strong Br$`\gamma `$ absorption feature in the spectrum of the A-type star (cf. Hanson et al. 1996). The spectrum was then divided by a blackbody of the temperature matching the spectral type of the calibrator to provide a spectrum corrected for all telluric absorption features.

The extracted spectra of S0-2 were still partially contaminated by background emission due to the gas present around the Galactic Center as well as to the presence of the nearby bright source IRS 16C, whose wings extend along the spatial direction up to the location of S0-2. To correct for this emission, we estimated a local background by averaging the flux in two 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$06 spatial intervals along the slit located 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$75 to the SW and 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 to the NE of S0-2. This background estimate, which amounts to 40–50 % of the level of S0-2’s continuum, was subtracted from the spectrum of the source to provide the final spectrum, which has SNR per pixel of $``$30-80 in the continuum (see Figure 1). There is significant Br$`\gamma `$ emission from the gas surrounding the Galactic Center and the intensity of this line varies spatially. Close to S0-2, however, the wavelength of this feature does not vary, which helps to distinguish it from any potential photospheric feature. In general, as long as the magnitude of S0-2’s Doppler shift is greater than $``$300 km/s, the line emission from the gas is unlikely to cause problems, either non-detections or biases, for R$``$ 4000 measurements of stellar Br $`\gamma `$ absorption. The zone of gas contamination is estimated based on the structure of the Br$`\gamma `$ emission line detected in the gas close to S0-2. The residual emission feature seen in the final spectrum of S0-2 corresponds to this local gas emission, and we believe that it is not physically associated with the star (see §3).

## 3 Results

The spectrum of S0-2, shown in Figure 1, has two identifiable spectral lines. These are both seen in absorption and are identified as the H I (4-7) or Br$`\gamma `$ line at 2.1661 $`\mu `$m and the He I triplet at 2.1126 $`\mu `$m ($`3p{}_{}{}^{3}P_{}^{o}4s{}_{}{}^{3}S`$), which is a blend of three transitions at 2.11274, 2.11267, and 2.11258 $`\mu `$m. Table 1 summarizes the properties of these two lines, which are obtained by fitting the background continuum over the whole spectrum with a low-order polynomial and fitting the lines with a Gaussian profile. Also given in Table 1 are limits on three lines that are not detected. The reported values and uncertainties are based on the fits to the average of all 11 spectra and the standard deviation of the mean of the fits to 5 independent pairs of spectra. The locations of the Gaussian peaks provide estimates of S0-2’s Doppler shift, after a correction of 18 km/s is applied to account for the Earth’s motion around the Sun and the Sun’s motion towards the center of the Galaxy (Binney & Merrifeild 1998). The agreement between the Doppler shifts inferred from the Br$`\gamma `$ and He I absportion line profiles supports the interpretation of the Br$`\gamma `$ emission in S0-2’s spectrum as residual gas emission as opposed to part of a P Cygni line profile. The weighted average of these two Doppler shift measurements yields a radial velocity of -510$`\pm `$40 km/s for S0-2 during 2002.4187. Combining this radial velocity with the tangential velocity measured by Ghez et al. (2003) at the same epoch, results in a total space motion of 6660 $`\pm `$ 730 km/s.

The Gaussian half width at half maximum (HWHM) values provide estimates of the rotational velocities. The intrinsic rotational profile of a star has a HWHM that corresponds to 90% of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ (Gray 1976). Since the HWHM of both lines is significantly larger than the instrumental HWHM ($``$38 km/s), we simply scale the Gaussian HWHM values by a factor of 1.1 to derive an estimated value of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$. The values from the two lines are comparable and averaged together suggest a $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of 220$`\pm `$40 km/s.

Equivalent widths (EW) for the lines are also derived from the Gaussian fits. The EW(Br$`\gamma `$) is 2.8 $`\pm `$ 0.3 Å and the EW(HeI\[2.1126 $`\mu `$m\]) is 1.7 $`\pm `$ 0.4 Å. These values are checked against those obtained from integrating over 40 Å-windows centered on the lines, which provide similar results to within 3–7%. Using the same window and the Doppler shift measured for two detected lines, we derive the limits for He I (2.0581 $`\mu `$m), N III (2.1155 $`\mu `$m), and He II (2.1885 $`\mu `$m), which are listed in Table 1.

Between our two consecutive nights of observations there is an expected change of 60 km/s in the radial velocity (§4.1). We therefore have also analyzed the spectra averaged over each night separately. The results for the Br$`\gamma `$ line are reported in Table 1. While the change in radial velocities between the two nights is not significant ($`V_z`$(2002.4205) - $`V_z`$(2002.4177) = -37 $`\pm `$ 47 km/s), it is consistent with the predicted change. Furthermore, the EW and $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ measurements from the spectrum averaged over the two nights appears to be unaffected by this shift. The individual nights’ $`V_r`$ are used in the dynamical analysis in §4.1 and the averaged spectrum values of EW and $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ are applied in the stellar astrophysics discussion in §4.2.

## 4 Discussion & Conclusions

### 4.1 Dynamics

The measurements of a radial velocity for S0-2 provide a new and powerful constraint on its orbit. S0-2’s motion on the plane of the sky provided the first estimates of the orbital parameters (Schödel et al. 2002; Ghez et al. 2003). By combining the radial velocity with the proper motions reported by Ghez et al. and assuming a distance of 8.0 kpc (Reid 1993), as was done in both proper motion analyses, we obtain the first orbital solution for S0-2 based on measured three dimensional motion (Table 2). We assume here that Sgr A\* has no significant velocity with respect to the Galaxy along the line of sight, as is observed for its proper motion (Reid et al. 1999). Our fit produces a total mass estimate of $`4.1(\pm 0.6)\times 10^6(D/8kpc)^3M_{}`$, consistent at the $``$2$`\sigma `$ level with earlier estimates based on velocity dispersion measurements. Our results on S0-2’s orbit do not assume the location of the dynamical center, as opposed to the analysis of Schödel et al.. Despite these two additional free parameters, the uncertainties on the orbital parameters are reduced by a factor of 2-3. This first orbital estimate of the Galaxy’s dynamical center is not only consistent with the nominal infrared position of Sgr A\* to within the uncertainties on the latter (Reid et al. 2003), but also a factor of 5 more precise ($`\pm `$ 2 milli-arcsec).

The addition of radial velocity measurements also breaks the ambiguity in the inclination angle, i. With the proper motion data alone, only the absolute value of the inclination angle can be determined, leaving the questions of the direction of revolution and where along the line of sight the star is located behind the black hole unresolved. Our radial velocity measurements indicate a negative inclination angle and consequently that S0-2 is both counter-revolving against the Galaxy and behind the black hole at the time of periapse. The improved location of the center of attraction from the orbital analysis results in a minimum offset of S0-2 from the blackhole in the plane of the sky of 11 $`\pm `$ 2 milli-arsec, which is significantly larger than the expected Einstein radius ($`\theta _E`$ = 0.42 milli-arcsec for the S0-2 distance behind the black hole of $``$ 100 AU) and therefore makes gravitational lensing an unlikely event (Wardle & Yusef-Zadeh 1992; Alexander & Loeb 2001).

In principle, the addition of radial velocities to the study of S0-2’s dynamics allows the distance to the Galactic Center, $`R_o`$, to be a free parameter in the orbital fits (Salim & Gould 1999). The measurements, however, were obtained just 30 days after the star’s closest approach to the black hole when the radial velocity was changing very rapidly (see Figure 2). While the current radial velocity and proper motion data set constrains $`M/R_{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ very effectively ($``$15% uncertainty), it does not yet produce a meaningful measurement of $`R_o`$. Nonetheless, as Figure 2 shows, the radial velocities from the currently allowed orbits quickly diverge, producing a spread of a few hundred km/s in one year. Within the next few years, the orbital fits based on both proper motions and additional radial velocity measurements should provide the most direct and precise estimate of the distance to the Galactic Center, making it a fundamental rung in the cosmic distance ladder.

### 4.2 Stellar Astrophysics

The detection of absorption lines allows us to sort out the spectral classification ambiguities present when only photometric information is available and to determine if this star’s photosphere has been altered as a result of its close proximity to the central black hole. The average brightness at 2.2 $`\mu `$m for S0-2 is K $``$ 13.9 mag and there is no evidence of brightening after periapse passage (Ghez et al. 2003). With a distance of 8.0 kpc and K-band extinction of 3.3 mag (Rieke, Rieke, & Paul 1989), the 2.2 $`\mu `$m brightness of S0-2 implies that, if it is an ordinary star unaltered by its environment, it could either be an O9 main-sequence star or a K5 giant star; all supergiants are ruled out as they are too bright by at least 2 magnitudes in the K bandpass. Kleinmann and Hall (1986) provide a 2.0 - 2.5 $`\mu `$m spectral atlas of late-type stars that demonstrates that if S0-2 is a K5 giant star, then it should have deep CO absorption lines, which definitively were not detected in either this experiment or our earlier experiment reported by Gezari et al. (2002). In contrast, the spectral atlas of 180 O and B stars constructed by Hanson, Conti and Rieke (1996) shows that an O9 main sequence star both lacks the CO absorption and has Br $`\gamma `$ and He I (2.1126 $`\mu `$m) consistent with the observed values. Futhermore, stars in this comparison sample earlier than O8 show NIII (2.115 $`\mu `$m) in emission and He II (2.1885 $`\mu `$m) in absorption above our 3 $`\sigma `$ thresholds, which are listed in Table 1; the lack of photospheric He I (2.058 $`\mu `$m) absorption does not provide any additional constraints. Similarly, a dwarf B-type stars later than B0 have absorption equivalent widths that are too large. Together, the photometry and absorption line-equivalent widths permit dwarf spectral types ranging from O8 to B0. Likewise, the rotational velocity of 224 km/s is reasonable for this range (Gatheier, Lamers, & Snow 1981). S0-2, therefore, appears to have a spectral type, and hence temperature ($``$30,000 K), as well as luminosity ($``$103 $`L_{}`$) that are consistent with a main sequence star having a mass of $``$15 $`M_{}`$ and an age $`<`$10 Myr.

It is challenging to explain the presence of such a young star in close proximity to a supermassive black hole. Assuming that the black hole has not significantly affected S0-2’s appearance or evolution, S0-2 must be younger than 10 Myr and thus formed relatively recently. If it has not experienced significant orbital evolution, its apoapse distance of 1900 AU implies that star formation is possible in spite of the tremendous tidal forces presented by the black hole, which is highly unlikely. If the star formed at larger distances from the black hole and migrated inward, then the migration would have to be through a very efficient process. Current understanding of the distribution of stars, however, does not permit such efficient migration. This problem is similar to that raised by the He I emission-line stars (e.g., Sanders 1992,1998; Morris 1993, Morris et al. 1999; Gerhard 2001; Kim & Morris 2003), which are also counter-revolving against the Galaxy (Genzel et al. 1997), but amplifies it with a distance from the black hole that is an order of magnitude smaller. An alternative explanation for S0-2’s hot photosphere is that it may be significantly altered by its environment. While its periapse passage is too large for it to be tidally heated by the black hole as explored by Alexander & Morris (2003), it may be affected by the high stellar densities found in this region. On the one hand, the high stellar densities might allow S0-2 to be an older giant star that has had its outer atmosphere stripped through collisions; however, to generate the necessary luminosity, significant external heating is required (Alexander 1999). On the other hand, high stellar densities might lead a cascade of merger events (Lee 1996), which would allow S0-2’s formation process to have begun more than 10 Myr ago. However a large number of collisions would have had to occur to provide the necessary lifetime to bring it in from sufficiently large radii. More exotically, it could be a ”reborn” star, which occurs as the product of a merger of a stellar remnant with a normal star. None of these possibilities is altogether satisfactory, leaving S0-2 as a paradox of apparent youth in the vicinity of a supermassive black hole.

We thank the staff of the Keck obsevatory, especially Randy Campbell, Grant Hill, Chuck Sorensen, David LeMignant, and director Fred Chaffee. This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation through the individual grant AST99-88397 and the Science and Technology Center for Adaptive Optics, managed by the University of California at Santa Cruz under Cooperative Agreement No. AST - 9876783. The research of E.E.B., B.T.S. and D.J.T. is supported by NASA. The W.M. Keck Observatory is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.


text:
# Optical Detection of a Single Nuclear Spin

Also at \]Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan. Also at \]NTT Basic Research Laboratories, 3-1 Morinosato-Wakamiya Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0198, Japan.

## Abstract

We propose a method to optically detect the spin state of a 31P nucleus embedded in a 28Si matrix. The nuclear-electron hyperfine splitting of the 31P neutral-donor ground state can be resolved via a direct frequency discrimination measurement of the 31P-bound exciton photoluminescence using single photon detectors. The measurement time is expected to be shorter than the lifetime of the nuclear spin at 4 K and 10 T.

The spin qubit embedded in a crystalline host is an attractive choice for solid-state quantum computation due to its long coherence time. The inevitable cost of the spin qubit’s isolation from the environment is the difficulty of measuring its quantum state. Scanning tunnelling microscopy and single molecule spectroscopy have pushed close to this limit by reporting single nuclear and single electron spin resonances Manassen et al. (2000); J. Wrachtrup *et al.* (1993, 1997), yet measurement of the quantum state of a single spin in the solid state remains elusive.

Nuclei in semiconductors, in particular silicon, have generated particular interest for solid-state quantum computation. The proposal of Kane Kane (1998); B.E. Kane *et al.* (2000), in which qubits are encoded as the spin state of single embedded $`{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}`$ nuclei, proposes to solve the single nuclear measurement problem by adiabatically transferring the nuclear state to the spin of the electron bound to the $`{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}`$ impurity and measuring the electron’s spin-correlated charge state with a single electron transistor (SET). In practice, however, charge fluctuations produced by the SET couple back to the $`{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}`$ nucleus via the electron’s strong hyperfine interaction, leading to a decoherence source that is not present in bulk silicon. Magnetic resonance force microscopy has approached single-electron-spin sensitivity, but experimental results thus far have shown that this probe induces spin relaxation more quickly than the needed measurement time B.C Stipe *et al.* (2001), casting doubts on proposals that seek its use for quantum computation G.P. Berman *et al.* (2001). The use of ensembles of $`{}_{}{}^{29}\text{Si}`$ nuclei in bulk silicon with no metallic gates has been proposed T. D. Ladd *et al.* (2002), but this scheme replaces the measurement problem with the challenge of achieving high nuclear polarization in order to maintain scalability. In this Letter, we propose an all-optical method to determine the nuclear spin state of an isolated $`{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}`$ impurity in bulk silicon. This method’s incorporation into silicon-based quantum computation architectures could ease these difficulties.

In semiconductors, free excitons can be bound to donor and acceptor impurity sites, forming bound excitons. When a bound exciton (BE) decays radiatively to a neutral impurity state, its linewidth is characteristically narrow due to the localization of the exciton D. Karaiskaj *et al.* (2001). If the hyperfine interaction between the impurity nucleus and either the neutral impurity bound carrier or the impurity BE is sufficiently strong, the nuclear state of the impurity can be determined via the BE photoluminescence (PL) energy. The particular case of the 31P donor in a 28Si matrix is treated below.

In a magnetic field, the ground state of the 31P BE, notated (P0,X), is split into four hole Zéeman levels. The ground state of the neutral donor, P0, is split into two electron Zéeman levels Ziemelis et al. (1982). These levels are illustrated in Fig. 1.

We assume a large applied magnetic field such that the electron/hole Zéeman interaction is much greater than the hyperfine interaction.

The P0 state is described by effective mass theory (EMT), where the total wavefunction $`\psi _\text{e}(𝐫)`$ of the donor electron is given by the product of the EMT envelope function $`F(𝐫)`$ and the Bloch wavefunction $`\phi (𝐫)=u(𝐫)e^{i𝐤𝐫}`$. Both the Bloch and envelope functions are $`s`$-like, so the dominant part of the hyperfine interaction is the Fermi contact term Abragam (1961),

$$_\text{C}=\frac{\mu _0}{4\pi }g_0\mu _\text{B}\mathrm{}\gamma _\text{n}\frac{8\pi }{3}𝐈𝐒\delta (𝐫),$$
(1)
where $`g_0`$ is the free-electron $`g`$-factor, $`\gamma _\text{n}`$ is the 31P gyromagnetic ratio, $`𝐈`$ is the nuclear spin operator, and $`𝐒`$ is the electron spin operator. When an exciton is bound to the neutral-donor site, the two electrons form an antisymmetric spin singlet state Kirczenow (1977); Dean et al. (1967). Consequently, the hyperfine splitting of the BE is determined only by the spin of the bound hole. Since the hole Bloch function is $`p`$-like, the Fermi contact term is negligible, and assuming that the envelope function is $`s`$-like, the orbital and dipolar terms will be much smaller than the P0 contact hyperfine splitting. Thus, the energy difference between the transitions $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the (P0,X) PL, shown in Fig. 1, is determined entirely by the hyperfine splitting of the P0 state. From Eq. (1), this splitting is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{HF},\text{P}^0}=\frac{\mu _0}{3}g_0\mu _\text{B}\gamma _\text{n}\mathrm{}|\psi _\text{e}(0)|^2.$$
(2)
The electron density at the 31P ($`𝐫=0`$) site has been determined via electron spin resonance to be $`0.44\times 10^{24}\text{ cm}^3,`$ corresponding to a $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{HF},\text{P}^0}`$ of $`60\text{ MHz}`$ Feher (1956). This splitting has also been calculated with reasonable accuracy using a corrected envelope function to account for the discrepancy in the observed and EMT ionization energies Kohn (1957); Feher (1959).

The (P0,X) state in Si decays primarily via a non-radiative Auger process with a lifetime of 300 ns Schmid (1977). However, there exists a zero-phonon radiative channel with a lifetime of 2 ms Schmid (1977). The PL linewidth of a single 31P donor impurity is thus expected to be approximately $`3\text{ MHz}`$, which is much smaller than the hyperfine splitting of 60 MHz. Experimentally, the PL linewidth from an ensemble of 31P impurities was measured to be less than 150 MHz at 2 K, which includes an inhomogeneous broadening effect and was limited by the spectrometer resolution D. Karaiskaj *et al.* (2001).

After Auger recombination, the electron/hole recombination energy is imparted to the second electron, which is ionized. To ensure a fast recapture process of the donor electron, one can optically excite conduction electrons. Simultaneously, one can resonantly excite free excitons which will be captured at the neutral-donor site. The BE will relax thermally within its lifetime Ziemelis et al. (1982), and in a magnetic field of 10 T at 4 K, the probability for it to occupy the lowest Zéeman level is 0.8. Thus, approximately 400 photons/s are emitted at the desired transitions $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Fig. 1.

The extraction of an emitted photon out of the high-refractive-index Si substrate as a well-collimated beam for optical detection is not trivial. For this purpose, one can incorporate a planar distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) cavity, as shown in Fig. 2(a),

at the center of which a 31P impurity is embedded. The cavity modifies the radiation pattern and concentrates the emitted power in the normal direction. With high and low DBR refractive indices $`n_1=3.0`$ and $`n_2=1.5`$, the output coupling efficiency ($`\beta `$-factor) into a beam emitted in a normal direction can be as high as 0.8 for a random dipole orientation Yamamoto et al. (1991). This efficiency is achieved at the cost of a decreased radiative decay rate by a factor of 3 Yamamoto et al. (1991). The overall number of PL photons available for optical detection would then be $`400\times 0.8/3100`$ photons/s.

Alternatively, a two-dimensional photonic crystal structure (Fig. 2b) can simultaneously enhance the output coupling efficiency and the radiative decay rate. A detailed analysis based on the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method predicts that an optical mode volume of $`0.5(\lambda /n)^3`$, a $`Q`$ value of 30,000, a spontaneous emission decay rate enhancement (Purcell) factor of 100, and a $`\beta `$-factor of 1 can be achieved Vuĉković and Yamamoto (2003). The expected photon flux in this case is $`4\times 10^4`$ photons/s.

In order to find the measurement time needed to determine the nuclear spin state, we calculate the signal-to-noise ratio for direct frequency detection. In the scheme illustrated by Fig. 3, the BE PL is collected and sent to input $`a`$ of a Mach-Zender interferometer. The signal is split by the first beamsplitter into arms $`c`$ and $`d`$, which have a phase difference of $`\omega \tau `$. Arms $`c`$ and $`d`$ are recombined at the second beamsplitter, and the photons in outputs $`e`$ and $`f`$ are detected by single photon detectors. The photocurrents are then subtracted, and the resulting current is time-integrated.

Assuming an input state with mean frequency $`\omega _0`$ and a Lorentzian spectral lineshape with full-width-half-max $`\gamma `$, the average integrated single-photon current is proportional to

$$I=e^{\gamma \tau /2}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0\tau ).$$
(3)
The variance of the current is proportional to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I^2=I^2I^2=1e^{\gamma \tau }\mathrm{cos}^2(\omega _0\tau ).$$
(4)
The two input frequencies of the BE PL, corresponding to the two nuclear spin states, are centered around a mean frequency $`\omega _0`$; we notate these frequencies $`\omega _\pm =\omega _0\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\omega /2,`$ where $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{HF},\text{P}^0}.`$ The difference in the integrated current between the nuclear states is the signal, so the power signal-to-noise ratio per photon for such a frequency detection scheme is given by

$$\frac{S}{N}=\frac{\left[\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \tau \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \tau \right)\right]^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \tau \right)+e^{\gamma \tau }1},$$
(5)
in which the interferometer is biased such that $`\omega _0\tau =(m+\frac{1}{2})\pi `$. The maximum signal-to-noise ratio is 0.084 per photon, assuming the upper bound on the PL linewidth of 150 MHz and a delay time $`\tau =2`$ ns. Assuming 100 photons per second are collected, the minimum integration time needed for a signal-to-noise ratio of unity is approximately 0.1 s. If we assume an enhanced spontaneous emission decay rate with a 2D photonic structure mentioned above and a collection efficiency of 0.5, the minimum integration time is reduced to approximately $`10^3`$ s.

Any practical detection scheme will suffer from detector efficiency and dark count rates. However, negligible dark count rates and a detection efficiency of 0.4 can be obtained at 1.1 $`\mu `$m with a superconducting transition edge sensor (TES) B. Cabrera *et al.* (2000). The effect of finite detector efficiency $`\eta _\text{d}`$ is to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio by $`\eta _\text{d}`$, extending the measurement time.

Sufficient integration of the luminescence signal measures the nuclear spin state only if that state is stable over a sufficient number of excitation/luminescence cycles. Previous experiments measuring the resonance of single nuclei have shown only distributions over the nuclear states, as in a high-temperature ensemble, due to the randomization of the nuclear spins during the integration time of the measurement J. Wrachtrup *et al.* (1997). However, in the case of $`{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}`$ nuclei in silicon, it is known from ESR experiments that the equilibrium nuclear spin relaxation time $`T_1`$ of isolated $`{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}`$ nuclei exceeds 10 hours at 1.25 K and 0.8 T Feher and Gere (1959). Such a long $`T_1`$ of solid-state nuclei is a combined consequence of the small number of nuclear interactions and a small density of states to which the nuclear Zéeman energy may be transferred. Cross relaxation with the phosphorous-bound electron, induced by the hyperfine interaction with the emission of a phonon, is also a slow process. It was measured to be 5 hours at 1.25 K and 0.8 T and should theoretically scale to 30 seconds at 4 K and 10 T Feher and Gere (1959). Since the P0 ground state only lasts nanoseconds before each optical re-excitation in this scheme, these already long equilibrium relaxation times are negligible. The nucleus may only be appreciably destabilized by the rapid optical excitations we introduce.

We first argue that nuclear spin relaxation due to optically excited, delocalized conduction electrons is not expected to be a significant effect. The number of conduction electrons required for neutralization of the Auger-ionized donors in $`1\text{ ns}`$ is approximately $`10^{13}\text{ cm}^3,`$ assuming a 4 K electron capture cross section of $`4\times 10^{11}\text{ cm}^2`$ Norton et al. (1973). At this temperature, electrons are expected to thermalize quickly, in which case the $`T_1`$ theory described in Ref. Abragam (1961) is applicable. This theory predicts a $`T_1`$ greater than $`10^6`$ seconds. Even $`{}_{}{}^{29}\text{Si}`$ in heavily doped ($`>10^{17}`$ donors/cm3) silicon has a measured $`T_1`$ in excess of 200 minutes at 4 K Sundfors and Holcomb (1964); Jérome (1968); the $`T_1`$ corresponding to $`{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}`$ nuclei would only be shorter by a factor of $`\gamma _{{}_{}{}^{29}\text{Si}}^2/\gamma _{{}_{}{}^{31}\text{P}}^2=4,`$ still leaving this timescale unimportant. An argument that $`T_1`$ due to free excitons should also be negligibly long follows a similar reasoning, since only the spin of the $`s`$-like electron interacts appreciably with the nucleus, and Boltzmann statistics may still be assumed.

Of greater concern is the probability of a nuclear spin flip during the capture of a free electron following the Auger process. Such a nuclear flip arises in second order perturbation theory, in which a virtual electron capture and a virtual electron/nuclear spin flip-flop in the neutral-donor state occur concurrently with the energy compensated by the real emitted phonon. To estimate the probability of such an event, we note that the energy cost of a hyperfine-induced electron/nuclear spin flip-flop (approximately the 1.2 meV Zéeman energy of the neutral-donor spin) is substantially smaller than the donor binding energy (45 meV). We may therefore assume that the density-of-states factors in Fermi’s Golden Rule are unchanged between the first and second order processes, and that they are independent of the initial spin state. We also assume that the optical excitation of free carriers is not spin selective, and since $`T_1`$ for these carriers exceeds the capture time, this implies that the initial spin polarizations are approximately equal. It follows from these assumptions that the probability ratio between the first and second order processes is well approximated by the ratio between their matrix elements. The second order matrix element for an electron/nuclear flip-flop process, assuming without loss of generality that the nucleus begins in the $`|`$ state, may be written as

$$\left|V_{\text{P}^+\text{P}^0}^{(2)}\right|^2=\left|\frac{\text{P}^+\left|_\text{N}\right|\text{P}^0\text{P}^0\left|_\text{C}\right|\text{P}^0}{E_{\text{P}^0}E_{\text{P}^0}}\right|^2,$$
(6)
in which $`|\text{P}^+`$ describes the ionized donor and $`|\text{P}^0`$ describes the neutral donor with electron spin up and nucleus spin down. These states are the only important ones for nuclear destabilization, since the $`|\text{P}^0`$ state is unperturbed by $`_\text{C}`$. The unperturbed eigenenergy difference between the intermediate and final state, $`E_{\text{P}^0}E_{\text{P}^0},`$ is a sum of the electron Zéeman term, the nuclear Zéeman term, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{HF},\text{P}^0}`$; the electron Zéeman term dominates this sum. The Hamiltonian term $`_\text{N}`$ refers to the interaction leading to the capture of the free electron; thus, a first-order matrix element for a neutralization process without a flip-flop is written as

$$|V_{\text{P}^+\text{P}^0}^{(1)}|^2=|\text{P}^+\left|_\text{N}\right|\text{P}^0|^2.$$
(7)
We assume that this Coulombic process has no spin selectivity. It follows that the probability per transition of a flip-flop may be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\left|V_{\text{P}^+\text{P}^0}^{(2)}\right|^2}{\left|V_{\text{P}^+\text{P}^0}^{(1)}\right|^2+\left|V_{\text{P}^+\text{P}^0}^{(1)}\right|^2+\left|V_{\text{P}^+\text{P}^0}^{(2)}\right|^2}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{\text{P}^0\left|_\text{C}\right|\text{P}^0}{E_{\text{P}^0}E_{\text{P}^0}}\right|^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\text{HF,P}\text{0}}}{g\mu _\text{B}B_0}\right)^2.\end{array}$$
(8)
This probability can be seen from an alternative viewpoint: if we use second-order time-independent perturbation theory to calculate the mixing of the $`|\text{P}^0`$ and $`|\text{P}^0`$ states due to the flip-flop terms of $`_\text{C},`$ and presume that capture rates to these perturbed states are the same as to the unperturbed states, the same probability is obtained.

The free exciton capture process leads to a similar second-order probability for nuclear randomization. In this case, however, the binding energy of the free exciton to the neutral donor is only somewhat larger than the electron Zéeman energy, so the density-of-states factors in the transition rates can become important. However, we do not expect this correction to alter the per-transition probability by more than a factor of order unity. We thus estimate that at 10 T, the probability of a nuclear flip for each free-exciton-capture and free-electron-capture process is approximately twice the result of Eq. (8): (60 MHz/280 GHz)$`{}_{}{}^{2}=5\times 10^8`$. The consequences of this probability will be discussed shortly.

A nuclear spin flip can also occur in a similar manner during a free exciton capture or BE Auger decay due to the BE (hole/nuclear) hyperfine interaction. This process is less important because the BE hyperfine interaction is much weaker. The magnitude of this interaction, which includes both dipolar coupling and any contribution due to a small $`s`$-like component of the hole’s Bloch wavefunction, may be estimated as 2 MHz from the results of muon spin resonance experiments Mamedov et al. (2002). Since the BE Zéeman energy is comparable to that of the bound electron, the probability of a spin flip due to the BE hyperfine coupling is smaller by the approximate factor $`(2\text{ MHz}/60\text{ MHz})^210^3.`$ Nuclear spin flip due to the P0 hyperfine coupling during radiative decay has a similar order to that during free electron capture, but since radiative decay is 7000 times less frequent, this probability may also be neglected.

It is unfortunate that the predominant decay mechanism is non-radiative, since each Auger process increases the probability of nuclear randomization without providing a signal photon. After $`2\times 10^6`$ excitations, at which point the probability of nuclear randomization exceeds 1/10, we can only expect to have collected and detected $`25`$ photons or $`5\times 10^3`$ photons with a DBR planar cavity or a 2D photonic crystal, respectively. This still yields a usable signal-to-noise ratio of 2 or $`400`$ for the respective geometries. Thus, we expect the measurement-induced lifetime of the single nuclear spin to be long enough to allow for the measurement of the nuclear spin state.

In summary, we have proposed utilizing the sharp BE PL lines for single nuclear spin measurement. We have demonstrated that it is theoretically possible to measure a single donor impurity spin in silicon using currently available technology – a semiconductor microcavity and single-photon detectors. We have analyzed only one type of BE in Si, due to the experimentally observed strong hyperfine coupling and narrow PL linewidths. However, bound excitons exist in abundance in most semiconductors. Thus, this technique could be applied to many more systems if the crystal quality is sufficiently high and the hyperfine coupling and photon flux are sufficiently large. We believe this technique holds promise for state readout in quantum computers utilizing nuclear qubits in semiconductors.

This work was partially supported by NTT Basic Research Laboratories. T. D. L. was supported by the Fannie and John Hertz Foundation. We would like to thank J. Vuckovic for fruitful discussions.