text:
# References

TEST OF THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW THROUGH

PRECESSION OF ORBITS

N.I. Kolosnitsyn and V.N.Melnikov

Center for Gravitation and Fundamental Metrology,VNIIMS

and Institute of Gravitation and Cosmology,

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia,

3-1, M.Ulyanovoi Str., 119313, Moscow, Russia

e-mail: melnikov@rgs.phys.msu.su

Abstract

Using precession of orbits due to non-Newtonian interaction between two celestial bodies and modern tracking data of satellites, planets and a pulsar we obtain new more precise limits on possible Yukawa-type deviations from the Newton law in planets (satellites) radii ranges.

1. Non-Newtonian interactions, or range variations of G.

Many modified theories of gravity and unified theories  predict some deviations from the Newton law (inverse square law, ISL) or composition-dependent violations of the Equivalence Principle (EP) due to appearance of additional fields or new possible massive particles (partners) . Experimental data limit the existence of these effects at nearly all ranges at some level, but the most poor data are available at less than millimeter and also at meters and hundreds of meters ranges. The only positive result of existence of such deviation in the range of 20 to 500 m was obtained by Achilli et al. using an energy storage plant experiment with gravimeters. They found the deviation from the Newton law with the Yukawa potential strength $`\alpha `$ between 0.13 and 0.25. This result contradicts other experimental data and needs to be verified in similar or other independent experiments, probably in space ones .

In the Einstein theory G is a true constant. But, if we think that G may vary with time , then, from a relativistic point of view, it may vary with distance as well. In GR massless gravitons are mediators of the gravitational interaction, they obey second-order differential equations and interact with matter with a constant strength G. If any of these requirements is violated or we consider quantum corrections to the classical theory, we come in general to deviations from the Newton law with range (or to generalization of GR).

In  several classes of such theories were analysed:

1. Theories with massive gravitons like bimetric ones or theories with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term.

2. Theories with an effective gravitational constant like the general scalar-tensor ones .

3. Theories with torsion.

4. Theories with higher derivatives (4th-order equations etc.), where massive modes in a propagator appear leading to short-range additional forces.

5. More elaborated theories with other mediators besides gravitons (partners), like supergravity, superstrings, M-theory etc.

6. Theories with nonlinearities induced by any known physical interactions (Born-Infeld etc.), where an effective mass appears.

7. Phenomenological models, where the detailed mechanism of deviation is not known (fifth or other force).

In all these theories some effective or real masses appear leading to Yukawa-type deviation from the Newton law, characterized by strength $`\alpha `$ and range $`\lambda `$ or to a power law deviation (see ).

There exist some model-dependant estimations of these forces. The most well-known one belongs to Scherk (1979) from supergravity where the graviton is accompanied by a spin-1 partner (graviphoton) leading to an additional repulsion. Other models were suggested by Moody and Wilczek (1984) – introduction of a pseudo-scalar particle – leading to an additional attraction between macro-bodies with the range $`210^4`$ cm $`<\lambda <20`$ cm and strength $`\alpha `$ from $`1`$ to $`10^{10}`$ in this range. Another supersymmetric model was elaborated by Fayet (1986, 1990), where a spin-1 partner of a massive graviton gives an additional repulsion in the range of the order $`10^3`$ km and $`\alpha `$ of the order $`10^{13}`$.

A scalar field to adjust $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was introduced also by S. Weinberg in 1989, with a mass smaller than $`10^3`$ $`\mathrm{eV}/c^2`$, or a range greater than 0.1 mm. One more variant was suggested by Peccei, Sola and Wetterich (1987) leading to additional attraction with a range smaller than 10 km. Some p-brane models also predict non-Newtonian additional interactions, in particular in the mm range, what is intensively discussed nowadays in the hierarchy and braneworld models. About PPN parameters for multidimensional models with p-branes see .

In this paper we consider limits on a possible Yukawa type additional interaction in the ranges of the order of planets (satellites) distances from the Sun (the Earth) using the precession method and satellites plus planets tracking data.

2. Basic formulas.

As it is known, in two bodies problem an orbit of a celestial body is closed for only two interaction potentials . They are:

(1) the Newtonian potential: $`U1/r`$ and

(2) $`Ur^2`$.

In other cases the orbit is not closed and a pericenter precession is observed. In particular, the deviation from the Newton law due to the Yukawa additional interaction

$$U^{}=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}\alpha \mathrm{exp}(r/\lambda )$$
(1)
entails a precession of an orbit.

In a general case the precession magnitude due to a small perturbation, described by a potential $`\delta U`$, is equal to (see )

$$\delta \phi =\frac{}{M}\left(\frac{2m}{M}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}r^2\delta U𝑑\phi \right)$$
(2)
Integration is done over a ”non-perturbed” trajectory. Here $`m_1`$ is a mass of one celestial body, $`m_2`$ is the mass of another celestial body, $`M=mr^2\dot{\phi }`$ is the integral of motion (the angular momentum), $`m=m_1m_2/(m_1+m_2)`$ is the reduced mass,

$`\delta U=\alpha (Gm_1m_2/r)\mathrm{exp}(r/\lambda )`$.

The ”non-perturbed” trajectory is described by the expressions:

$$r=\frac{p}{1+e\mathrm{cos}\phi },e^2=1+\frac{2EM^2}{m(Gm_1m_2)^2},p=\frac{M^2}{mGm_1m_2}=a(1e^2).$$
(3)
where $`e`$ is an eccentricity, $`a`$ is a semi-major axis.

After differentiating the right-hand side of Eq.(2) with respect to M we obtain

$$\delta \phi =2mGm_1m_2\alpha \left\{\frac{1}{M^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}re^{r/\lambda }𝑑\phi +\frac{1}{M}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}\left(1\frac{r}{\lambda }\right)e^{r/\lambda }\frac{r}{M}𝑑\phi \right\}$$
(4)
Taking into account Eq. (3) we get

$$\frac{r}{M}=\frac{r}{M}\left[1+\frac{e+\mathrm{cos}\phi }{e(1+e\mathrm{cos}\phi )}\right]$$
(5)
After substitution of (5) in (4) we obtain

$$\delta \phi =2\alpha \frac{mGm_1m_2}{M^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}re^{r/\lambda }\left[\frac{e+\mathrm{cos}\phi }{e(1+e\mathrm{cos}\phi )}+\frac{r}{\lambda }\left(1+\frac{e+\mathrm{cos}\phi }{e(1+e\mathrm{cos}\phi )}\right)\right]𝑑\phi $$
(6)
As a result, we have

$$\delta \phi =\alpha \frac{2}{e}\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(r/\lambda )}{(1+e\mathrm{cos}\phi )^2}\left\{\frac{r}{\lambda }\left[2e+(1+e^2)\mathrm{cos}\phi \right](e+\mathrm{cos}\phi )\right\}𝑑\phi $$
(7)
where

$$\frac{r}{\lambda }=\frac{a}{\lambda }\frac{1e^2}{(1+e\mathrm{cos}\phi )}.$$
(8)
3. Estimation of effects.

Using Eq. (7) and proposed data on $`\delta \phi `$ error for the LAGEOS Satellites, the inner planets, Moon and the binary pulser B1913+16, we calculated curves $`\alpha (\lambda )`$, which determine a bound in the plane ($`\alpha ,\lambda `$) between two domains, where the Yukawa interaction (a new nonnewtonian force) is forbidden by experiment and where it is not. The sensitivities to Yukawa interactions - the united curve $`\alpha (\lambda )`$ described by Eq.(7) - are shown in Fig.1 as the domain 1998 for the parameter $`\lambda `$ in the range from $`110^6`$ m to $`110^{13}`$ m.

We took data for LAGEOS and LAGEOS II from  related to the relativistic Lense-Thirring precession. The data contain information on classical (Newtonian) and relativistic precession. The last one equals to $`57`$ milliarcseconds per year for LAGEOS II. The error for test of the Lense-Thirring effect is equal to $`20\%`$. Therefore, we took the error $`\delta \phi =11.4`$ milliarcseconds per year. The LAGEOS II eccentricity $`e=0.014`$. Using the data we obtained $`\alpha _{min}=1.3810^{11}`$ for $`\lambda =6.08110^6`$ m. Our result is in a very good agreement with the estimation for $`\alpha 110^{11}`$ obtained by Iorio (see .

For the Moon there are high precision data of Laser Ranging (see, for example ). In Ref.  geodetic precession (first calculated by de Sitter), equaled to 19 ms per year, was determined with the error $`0.9\%`$. The absolute error was equal to $`1,7110^4\mathrm{"}/y`$. We used this estimation and obtained $`\alpha _{min}=3.6410^{11}`$ for $`\lambda =1,9210^8`$ m.

Very precise information on the Mercury precession is contained in the article of Pitjeva . Using radar observations of Mercury for the time span 1964-1989 and taking its topography Pitjeva has estimated systematic errors for the perihelion motion and a new random error for this motion as $`0.052\mathrm{"}/cy`$. From this it follows that $`\alpha _{min}=3.5710^{10}`$ for $`(\lambda =2.8910^{10}`$ m).

The most precise data on the Mars precession are obtained from observations of the landing spacecraft Pathfinder (see  ). Pitjeva has analysed joint observation data of Viking and Pathfinder missions and has obtained more precise estimation for precession of the Mars . However a sensitivity to the Yukawa force in this case is very small and the sensitivity curve for Mercury dominates.

We also used data for the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The pulsar has an orbit with the high eccentricity $`e=0.617`$ and a big precession $`4,23^o/y\pm 0,000007^o/y`$. Using parameters of the pulsar in  we calculated $`\alpha _{min}=6.40910^{11}`$ for $`\lambda =7.51510^8`$ m.

Fig.1 shows our data (LAGEOS, MOON, PSR1913, MERCURY) as the new experimental constraint on the coupling parameter $`\alpha `$ as a function of the parameter $`\lambda `$ taken from the reference .

4. Conclusions

Here, we presented some new limits on possible deviations from the inverse square law using planets and satellite tracking data. They improve the existing ones by several orders at satellite ($`610^6`$ m) and planets distance from the Sun ($`110^{13}`$ m) ranges. Some proposed space projects (such as SEE) make possible to improve these estimations to five orders at a meter range (see  and  ). Limits at less than mm ranges see in .


format: text

text:
# Quantization of the sphere with coherent states

## 1 Main ideas

Current views link quantization with dynamics. The reason is that quantum mechanics or quantum field theories address to dynamical systems, i.e., particles or fields. Our point of view here breaks the link between quantization and dynamics: any (classical) physical system can be quantized. Only dynamical systems lead to *dynamical* quantum theories, which appear to result from the quantization of symplectic structures.

The procedure developed here, through *coherent states* (CS), allows to quantize any system considered as an Observation Set, i.e., a set of data $`X=\{x\}`$, whose elements can be points, or any kind of parameters. When $`X`$ has a symplectic structure, it can be considered as a phase space, and our approach is then equivalent to the usual quantization, although with some peculiar characteristics. But the CS procedure is much more general and can be applied even in the absence of symplectic structure, and in fact of any structure at all (other than a measure) over $`X`$.

A quantization, in this sense, may be considered as a different way to look at the system. It shows numerous analogies with some procedures used in data handling (discussed in more details in Gazeau et al. 2003 ), for instance those involving wavelets, which are the basic example of coherent states. In many respects, the choice of a quantization appears here as the choice of a resolution to look at the system. As it is well known, some aspects of quantum mechanics may be seen as a non commutative geometry of the phase space (position and momentum operators do not commute). If we quantize a “ space of data ”, it will be no surprising that a non commutative geometry emerges. We will show explicitly how a quantization of the ordinary sphere leads to its fuzzy geometry.

## 2 Coherent states

The (classical) system to be quantized is considered as a set of data, $`X=\{x\}`$, with no other specified structure than a measure $`\mu `$ (with measure axioms; see ). The quantization is defined by the choice of a (separable) Hilbert space $``$ with an inclusion map

$$Xxx.$$
(1)
This defines the coherent states $`x`$, which must obey two conditions:
\- the resolution of the identity:

$$_X\mu (dx)xx=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}_{}.$$
(2)
It implies that the coherent states $`x`$ form an over-complete (continuous) basis of $``$.
\- a normalization

$$xx=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(3)
Note that the $`xx`$ appear as natural Hermitian operators (orthogonal projection) over $``$.

There exists a natural Hilbert space associated to $`X,\mu `$: the space $`L^2(X,\mu )`$ of square-integrable functions over $`X`$. There is an isometric embedding $`W`$ of our (closed) Hilbert subspace $``$ in $`L^2`$, resulting from the *Weyl-Wigner injection*

$$\psi \mathrm{\Psi }W()L^2:x\mathrm{\Psi }(x)x\psi .$$
(4)
Thus, the quantization procedure may also be seen as a peculiar choice of a sub-space of $`L^2`$. An explicit procedure is explicited in , and applied below to the sphere $`S^2`$. It begins with the selection of a sub-vector space of $`L^2`$ by defining an orthonormal set of $`N`$ functions $`\varphi _i`$, verifying $`𝒩(x)_{i=1}^N\varphi _i(x)^2<\mathrm{}`$. We note $`\varphi _i`$, as a vector, with the ket notation $`i`$, and we define the family of coherent states as

$$x\frac{1}{𝒩(x)}\underset{i}{}\varphi _i(x)i,$$
(5)
which allows to perform the analysis presented above. The resolution of identity implies the existence of a reproducing kernel $`K`$, in $``$ considered as a subset of $`L^2`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }=K\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (cf. wavelets), i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mu (dy)K(x,y)\mathrm{\Psi }(y);K(x,y)xy.$$
(6)
### 2.1 Observables and Symbolic calculus

A *classical* observable over $`X`$ is a function $`f:XK`$ ($`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ or $``$). To any such function $`f`$, we associate the observable over $``$,

$$A_f_X\mu (dx)f(x)xx.$$
(7)
For a large class of observables, these operators are self-adjoint.

The existence of the continuous frame $`\{x\}`$ enables the definition of a symbolic calculus à la Berezin-Lieb . To each linear, self-adjoint operator (observable) $`𝒪`$ acting on $``$, one associates the lower (or covariant) symbol

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒪}(x)x𝒪x,$$
(8)
and the upper (or contravariant) symbol (not necessarily unique) $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ such that

$$𝒪=_X\mu (dx)\widehat{𝒪}(x)xx.$$
(9)
Note that $`f`$ is an upper symbol of $`A_f`$.

They obey the Berezin-Lieb inequalities:

$$_X\mu (dx)g\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒪}(x)\right)\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{g}\left(𝒪\right)_\mathrm{X}\mu (\mathrm{dx})\mathrm{g}\left(\widehat{𝒪}(\mathrm{x})\right),$$
(10)
where $`g(x)`$ is a convex map.

### 2.2 First example: quantization of the circle $`𝒮^1`$

In , we gave the simplest examples of application of this procedure: the quantization of a discrete set of elements, and of the unit interval. Here we follow by showing a quantization of the circle $`X=\{\theta \}`$, with the normalized measure $`d\theta /\pi `$.

The simplest possibility is a (real) quantization, with $`=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^2:=\{(x,y)\}`$. The map (1) is defined by

$$X\theta \theta (\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^2.$$
(11)
The coherent states $`\theta `$ are the unit vectors of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^2`$ of argument $`\theta `$, which design the unit circle (thus, the embedding). It is easy to check that they form an over-complete basis of $``$, with the completness relation (2):

$$_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\theta }{\pi }\theta \theta =\text{11}_{}.$$

In matrix notation, an observable of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^2`$ is written as a linear symetric $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& d\end{array}\right]=\frac{a+d}{2}\sigma _0+\frac{ad}{2}\sigma _3+b\sigma _1,$$
(12)
so that $`\sigma _0\text{11}`$ and the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _i`$ form a basis for the space of observables.

Corresponding upper and lower symbols can be obtained as

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(\theta )=\frac{a+d}{2}+\frac{ad}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta +b\mathrm{sin}2\theta ,$$

$$\widehat{A}(\theta )=\frac{a+d}{2}+(ad)\mathrm{cos}2\theta +b\mathrm{sin}2\theta .$$

## 3 Quantizations of the 2-sphere

### 3.1 The 2-sphere

In , we proposed a practical method to construct explicitly the coherent states by selecting some peculiar elements of $`L^2`$. Here we apply this method to the quantization of the Observation Set $`X=S^2`$, the 2-sphere. A point of $`X`$ is noted $`x=(\theta ,\varphi )`$. We adopt the normalized measure $`\mu (dx)=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi /4\pi `$, proportional to the $`SU(2)`$invariant measure, which is also the surface element.

We know that $`\mu `$ is a symplectic form, with the canonical coordinates $`q=\varphi ,p=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. This allows to see $`S^2`$ as the phase space for the theory of (classical) angular momentum. In this spirit, we will be able to interpret our procedure as the construction of the coherent spin states. Also, our construction will take advantage of the group action of SO(3) on $`S^2`$. $`S^2`$ is embedded in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$, and $`G=SO(3)`$ acts as isometry group in $`S^2`$. However, we emphasize again that our quantization procedure is based on the only existence of a measure, and may be used in the absence of metric or symplectic structure.

Quantization is defined by an embedding of $`S^2`$ in an Hilbert $``$. This paper deals with the simple case $`=^2`$. The cases $`=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n`$ will be treated in future works.

### 3.2 Two-dimensional hermitian processing of the 2-sphere: the quantum spin in its complex version

Here, we embed $`S^2`$ into the smallest complex Hilbert space possible $`=^2`$. This quantization leads to the coherent spin states . Proceeding as indicated in , we define $``$ by the selection of the two complex functions

$`1\mathrm{\Phi }_1:\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2`$ (13)
$`2\mathrm{\Phi }_2:\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta /2e^{i\varphi },0\theta \pi ,0\varphi 2\pi .`$
We define the embedding map

$$xx=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta /21+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta /2e^{i\varphi }2,$$
(14)
leading to

$`xx`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /2& \mathrm{cos}\theta /2\mathrm{sin}\theta /2e^{i\varphi }\\ \mathrm{cos}\theta /2\mathrm{sin}\theta /2e^{i\varphi }& \mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2\end{array}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`[\sigma _0+\mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _3+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \sigma _1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \sigma _2].`$
We can check

$$_{S^2}\mu (dx)xx=\text{11},xx=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$

The Pauli matrices $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ form a basis of the $`2\times 2`$ complex hermitian matrices. The upper and lower symbols follow from those of the basis, namely

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`\widehat{\sigma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ $`=`$ $`3\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_i,i=1,2,3.`$
We obtain easily the operators associated to the functions (coordinates) $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ as

$$A_\theta =\frac{\pi }{8}\left[\begin{array}{cc}3& 0\\ 0& 5\end{array}\right],A_\varphi =\frac{\pi }{4}\left[\begin{array}{cc}4& i\\ i& 4\end{array}\right].$$
(18)
Their commutator is $`[A_\varphi ,A_\theta ]=\frac{i\pi ^2}{64}\sigma _1`$, with

$$x[A_\varphi ,A_\theta ]x=\frac{i\pi ^2}{64}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )$$
(19)
and

$$x[A_\varphi ,A_\theta ]^2x=\frac{\pi ^4}{(64)^2}.$$
(20)
We may calculate the operators associated to the coordinates in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$:

$`x^1=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\sigma _1`$ (21)
$`x^2=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\sigma _2`$ (22)
$`x^3=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\sigma _3,`$ (23)
involving the three Pauli matrices. These operators provide the quantum version of the coordinates. We interpret them below in terms of non commutative geometry.

Note that we can perform the same procedure with the two functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}(x)=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2e^{i\varphi /2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}(x)=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta /2e^{i\varphi /2}`$, instead of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ given by (13), with identical results.

The generalization to $`L+1`$, instead of 2 dimensions starts from a choice of $`L+1`$ basis functions (see below), leading to an Hilbert space $``$ of dimension $`L+1`$. As we will see, this is linked to the fuzzy sphere with $`L+1`$ cells.

### 3.3 Link with the fuzzy sphere

We recall an usual construction of the fuzzy sphere ( p.148). It starts from the decomposition of any smooth function $`fC(S^2)`$ in spherical harmonics,

$$f=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m}{}f_\mathrm{}mY_m^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(24)
We note $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ the $`(2\mathrm{}+1)`$-dimensional vector space generated by the $`Y_m^{\mathrm{}}`$, for fixed $`\mathrm{}`$. The direct sum $`_{\mathrm{}=0}^LV^{\mathrm{}}`$, generated by the $`Y_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}L`$, is a vector space of dimension $`(L+1)^2`$.

Through the embedding of $`S^2`$ in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$, we may write each point of $`S^2`$ as $`x=(x^i)`$, with $`_{i=1}^3(x^i)^2=1`$. Any function in $`S^2`$ can be seen as the restriction of a function on $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$. Moreover, such functions are generated by the homogeneous polynomia in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$. This allows (identifying a function and its restriction) to express equation (24) in a polynomial form in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3`$:

$$f=f_{(0)}+\underset{(i_1)}{}f_{(i)}x^i+\mathrm{}+\underset{(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{\mathrm{}})}{}f_{(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{\mathrm{}})}x^{i_1}x^{i_2}\mathrm{}x^i_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{},$$
(25)
where each sum extends to all symmetric combinations of the $`\mathrm{}`$ indices to generate $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$. For each fixed value of $`\mathrm{}`$, the $`2\mathrm{}+1`$ coefficients $`f_{(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{\mathrm{}})}`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$ fixed) are those of the symmetric traceless $`3\times 3\times \mathrm{}\times 3`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$ times) matrices.

To obtain $`S_{fuzzy,L+1}`$, the fuzzy sphere with $`L+1`$ cells,
\- we consider the three generators $`J^i`$ of the $`L+1`$ dimensional irreducible unitary representation (IUR) of SU(2). They are expressed as $`(L+1)\times (L+1)`$ matrices obeying

$$[J_i,J_J]=iϵ_{ijk}J_k.$$
(26)
\- To obtain the operator $`F`$ associated to any function $`f`$, we first replace each $`x^i`$ by the matrix $`X^i=\kappa J^i`$, where $`\kappa =2r/\sqrt{L^2+2L}`$.
\- In the above development (25) of $`f`$, we replace each coordinate $`x^i`$ by the $`(L+1)\times (L+1)`$ matrix $`X^i`$, and the usual product by matrix product. Then we truncate the expression obtained at index $`\mathrm{}=L`$. These matrices generate the set $`M^{L+1}`$ of $`(L+1)^2`$ independent $`(L+1)\times (L+1)`$ matrices: a closed algebra through the product, which provides a finite approximation to $`C(S^2)`$. According to this construction, a basis of $`M^{L+1}`$ is provided by all products of the $`J^i`$’s up to power $`L`$. The corresponding (non commutative) matrix geometries are finite, fuzzy approximations to the smooth sphere $`S^2`$, which appears as the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ of their sequence. Note that $`M^{L+1}`$ may be identified to $`_{\mathrm{}=0}^LV^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Examples:

* L=0: we replace the $`x^i`$ by the pure number $`1`$ and $`M^1`$, of dimension 1, reduces to $``$.
* L=1: we replace the $`x^i`$ by $`\kappa _1\sigma ^i`$, the three Pauli matrices ($`\kappa _1=2r/3`$). By their products, they generate $`M^2`$, of dimension 4. This gives the geometry of the fuzzy sphere $`S_{fuzzy,2}`$ with 2 cells.
* L=2: we replace the $`x^i`$ by $`\kappa _2J^i`$, with $`\kappa _2=r/\sqrt{2}`$, and the three rotation matrices; $`[J^i,J^j]=iϵ_{ijk}J^k`$. By their products, they generate $`M^3`$, of dimension 9. This gives the geometry of the fuzzy sphere $`S_{fuzzy,3}`$ with 3 cells.

According to this construction, the geometry of the fuzzy sphere results from the choice of the algebra $`M^{L+1}`$, of the representation matrices, with their matrix product. This gives the abstract algebra of operators acting on $`S_{fuzzy,L+1}`$. The order $`(L+1)`$ of the matrices invites to see them as acting as the endomorphisms of an Hilbert space of dimension $`(L+1)`$ . This is exactly what provides the coherent states introduced here.

Fuzzy spheres from coherent states

The CS procedure presented above deals with the case $`L+1=2`$. It associates to the three coordinates $`x^i`$ the three Pauli matrices, i.e., the three operators involved in the construction of $`S_{fuzzy,2}`$. With the identity matrix, they form the vector space of operators $`M^2`$. We introduced them through their action on the Hilbert space $`V^{1/2}`$ generated by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, which provides a 2-dimensional IUR of SU(2). This suggests the following generalisation of the CS procedure which leads to the fuzzy sphere $`S_{fuzzy,L+1}`$: we consider as the Hilbert space $`V^{L/2}`$ that of the $`(L+1)`$-dimensional IUR of SU(2). When $`L=2k`$ is even, we may chose for $`V^k`$ the canonical basis $`k,i`$, $`i=k,\mathrm{},k`$, where each $`k,iY_i^k`$ is a spherical harmonic.

This does not apply however when $`L`$ is odd. In the general case, we may follow . We select the basis $`L/2,i`$, $`i=L/2,\mathrm{},L/2`$, corresponding to the orthogonal functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{L/2}`$. These functions are defined by the intermediary of the complex variable $`z\mathrm{tan}\theta /2e^{i\varphi }`$, as $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{L/2}(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{L/2}(\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`\sqrt{C_{L/2+i}^L}\frac{z^{L/2+i}}{(1+z^2)^{L/2}}=\sqrt{C_{L/2+i}^L}\mathrm{cos}^{L/2i}\theta /2\mathrm{sin}^{L/2+i}\theta /2e^{i(L/2+i)\varphi }`$,
with $`,C_{L/2+i}^L\frac{L!}{(L/2+i)!(L/2i)!}`$ (formula (19) of ).
This allows us to see $`M^{L+1}`$ as the set of endomorphisms End$`(V^{L/2})`$.

The coherent states are constructed following the procedure above: $`x=_i\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{L/2}(x)L/2,i`$. The observables are given by

$$A_f=\underset{i,j=L/2}{\overset{L/2}{}}\mu (dx)f(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i^{L/2}(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_j^{L/2}(x)ji.$$
(27)
In other words, $`[A_f]_{ij}=\mu (dx)f(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i^{L/2}(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_j^{L/2}(x).`$ Now we can develop $`f`$ as $`f=_{\mathrm{}=0}^{\mathrm{}}_mf_\mathrm{}m\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ and calculate the sum. To go further, we take into account the fact that the product $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i^{L/2}(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_j^{L/2}(x)`$ can be developed themselves in spherical harmonics, with all terms having $`\mathrm{}`$ lower than $`L`$. Given the orthogonality of the spherical functions, this implies that the only terms in the development of $`f`$ are those with $`\mathrm{}L`$. Finally, this leads to

$$F_{ij}=\mu (dx)\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{L}{}}f_\mathrm{}m\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{\mathrm{}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i^{L/2}(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_j^{L/2}(x).$$
(28)
Involving the Clebsh-Gordan coefficients

$$C_{mij}^{\mathrm{}L/2L/2}\mu (dx)\mathrm{\Theta }_m^{\mathrm{}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i^{L/2}(x)\mathrm{\Theta }_j^{L/2}(x),$$
(29)
we obtain finally

$$F_{ij}=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{L}{}}f_\mathrm{}mC_{mij}^{\mathrm{}L/2L/2}.$$
(30)
In particular, the observables $`\widehat{Y}_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ associated to the spherical harmonics $`Y_m^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{}L`$ are in number $`(L+1)^2`$ and provide a basis for $`M^{L+1}`$. They are defined by $`[\widehat{Y}_m^{\mathrm{}}]_{ij}=C_{mij}^{\mathrm{}L/2L/2}.`$

For any value of $`L`$, the CS construction leads to an Hilbert space of dimension $`L+1`$, as indicated above. What we have shown is that the canonical algebra of operators acting on $`H`$ identifies with the algebra of operators acting on $`S_{fuzzy,L+1}`$, the fuzzy sphere with $`L+1`$ cells.

## 4 Discussion

The CS quantization method proposed here applies to any Observation Set. In  we applied it to discrete samples and to the unit segment. More general developments will be given in a forthcoming paper. Here we have presented its application to the sphere $`S^2`$. A quantization appear as a choice to look at the sphere with a different point of view, with a finite resolution. We have shown how complex quantizations lead to an explicit construction of the Hilbert space associated to the fuzzy sphere, although we have not examined the non commutative differential structure associated. We have also emphasized the links with the theory of (irreducible) group representations.

The derivation of coherent spin states shows how this procedure, applied to a symplectic space, is able to give an usual dynamical quantum theory. However, as we claimed, it is much more general, allowing to perform quantization in the absence of any dynamical evolution. In further works, we will examine this possibility and study the application of this quantization procedure to other manifolds, with and without symplectic structure. Potential applications are the derivations of new fuzzy spaces. Also, since quantization can be performed in the absence of any dynamics, this opens perspective for fully covariant approaches, when no time function is defined.


text:
# Properties of superconducting MgB2 wires: “in-situ” versus “ex-situ” reaction technique

## I Introduction

A simple composition, rather easy preparation, a relatively high critical temperature $`T_c`$, quite high critical currents, and low sensitivity to weak links make MgB2 superconductor a suitable candidate for practical large-scale applications, such as long wires for power lines, magnets, motors, generators, etc. The powder-in-tube (PIT) technique has been adopted for wire fabrication with this brittle material. One approach to the fabrication is to use pre-reacted MgB2 powder, the so called “ex-situ” reaction preparation. High values of transport critical current $`I_c`$ in the ex-situ prepared tapes have been achieved even without further sintering grasso . However, 1% of additional impurity in the initial pre-reacted MgB2 powder has been shown to completely suppress $`J_c`$ in tapes fujii . It was further shown that a heat treatment of such tapes, following the mechanical deformation stage, can increase the critical current density $`J_c`$, as a consequence of stronger grain connectivity due to the heat treatment suo . In this work suo , only hard sheath materials were used, which are beneficial for the ex-situ preparation due to chemical compatibility and the possibility of achieving high core densities inside the sheath. Nevertheless, the poor ability of MgB2 particles to form a bulk monolithic structure remains an important issue for further $`J_c`$ enhancement, as was shown, for example, by the two-stage wire fabrication process discussed in Refs. pan2 ; pan3 . This process involved an initial in-situ wire preparation from an unreacted Mg+2B powder mixture, as the first stage, and a quasi ex-situ second stage consisting of an additional mechanical deformation of the wires, which crashed the core that had been formed in order to increase its density, followed by another heat treatment. The results indicated that wires made by the ex-situ preparation procedure are not optimal.

An alternative “in-situ” reaction approach has been successfully used for achieving excellent superconducting characteristics for MgB2 wires xiaolin ; martinez , in particular if SiC nano-particle doping is introduced pansic1 ; pansic2 . The in-situ preparation has, however, its own disadvantage: the density of the MgB2 core after its formation is rather low, and its microstructure is extremely porous. This is a consequence of the phase transformation from Mg+2B $``$ MgB2, because the theoretical mass density of the initial Mg+2B mixture is significantly lower than that of the MgB2 phase pan2 . As already mentioned, an additional stage of mechanic deformation and consecutive heat treatment did not help to overcome this problem.

In this work, we further investigate the issue by combining both preparation approaches in an attempt to increase the mass density of the core without losing the grain connectivity. Both factors are known to be the keys for high current-carrying ability. By using an addition of Mg+2B powder mixture to pre-reacted MgB2 powder we introduce the required liquid “welding” and “filling” phase in between MgB2 particles. We also show that the properties and amount of grain boundaries are the factors influencing vortex pinning and current-carrying ability in the pure MgB2 material. In this work, we also discuss the effect of thermo-magnetic instability which turns out to be highly pronounced in the in-situ prepared superconductor.

## II Experimental details

Commercially available magnesium powder (350 mesh and 99+% pure) and amorphous boron powder (99% pure) with a composition of Mg+2B were mixed. The Mg+2B mixture was combined with commercial MgB2 powder (Alfa-Aesar, containing about 2% of secondary phases) in the following proportion (MgB2)1-x:(Mg+2B)x, where $`x`$ is 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0. The particle size for Mg and MgB2 powders was about the same $`45\mu `$m, whereas the B powder had a particle size of about 40 nm. The final mixtures were then ground in a mortar by hand for half an hour. The wires were prepared by the powder-in-tube technique: the mixtures were packed into iron tubes having outer and inner diameters of 7.6 mm and 5.1 mm, respectively. Both ends of the tubes were sealed by Fe-rod plugs. The density of the powder compression after the mechanical deformation (before heat treatment) was estimated to decrease with increasing $`x`$ from $`1.81\times 10^3`$ kg/m3 ($`x=0`$) to $`1.24\times 10^3`$ kg/m3 ($`x=1`$) which is simply due to the decreasing amount of the reacted powder having a higher mass density. The filled tubes were groove rolled into square wires with a square side of 3.3 mm. Approximately, 2 cm long pieces were cut from the wires for each proportion of the mixture and then sintered at 950C for 3 hours in a furnace with a continuous argon flow. The sintering was followed by a quench-cooling in liquid nitrogen. The iron sheath was then mechanically removed from all the samples to enable comparative magnetic measurements of the superconducting cores. The influence of the iron sheath shielding upon magnetic measurements is considered elsewhere paniron . The samples were then polished to rectangular shapes having similar dimensions. The magnetization measurements were carried out in a MPMS SQUID magnetometer in a temperature range of 5-40 K within the applied magnetic field $`|B_a|5`$ T. The field was applied parallel to the longest dimension of the sample, i.e., along the wire axis. A magnetic $`J_c`$ was derived from the half-width of the magnetization loops $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=(|M^+|+|M^{}|)/2`$ (with $`M^+`$ and $`M^{}`$ being descending and ascending branches of the magnetization loop, respectively), using the following critical state model formula: $`J_c=k\mathrm{\Delta }M/d`$, where $`k=12w/(3wd)`$ is a geometrical factor, with $`d`$ and $`w`$ being sample thickness and width, respectively. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was used for control of the phase composition. Scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) was used for analysis of the core microstructure. The mass density of MgB2 cores was estimated from data obtained by measurements of their weight and volume.

## III Results and discussion

### III.1 Microstructure and density

Figure 1 shows a series of lower (left) and higher (right) magnification SEM images taken for the samples studied. One can readily see the continuous micro-structural development of the core as $`x`$ increases from 0 to 1. For the sample with $`x=0`$ the microstructure appears to be a relatively homogeneous formation, consisting of small particles (grains) $`<5\mu `$m. Basically, the microstructure looks like well-compressed powder, rather than a granular material. The particle size appears to be much smaller than the initial particle size of the MgB2 powder used for filling the iron tubes. No large (micro) scale voids are to be seen, however, a nano-scale porosity ($`12\mu `$m) is obvious for this sample. The porosity scale can be further reduced if either pressing or a higher overall deformation rate is used for mechanical processing. However, we note that at higher deformation rates iron becomes quite hard and brittle pan1 , which is not desirable for long wire manufacturing and applications. Iron annealing which could soften the material, is not suitable either, due to the rather high annealing temperature required, which is in the range of MgB2 phase formation and can introduce secondary phases into the superconductor.

After addition of the unreacted Mg+2B mixture (figure 1(b)), the core microstructure for the sample with $`x=0.3`$ shows a trend towards becoming a granular material, rather than just being well-connected powder particles. Although the particle size is about the same as in the $`x=0`$ case, the grains look better connected. Indeed, the liquid phase of the Mg+2B mixture during the sintering eventually turns into a MgB2 matrix in which initial particles of pre-reacted MgB2 powder are embedded. Correspondingly, a smaller amount of the nano-scale porosity is observable. Instead, a small volume of large scale voids (of the order of 10 $`\mu `$m) has appeared, as a result of a core shrinkage due to MgB2 formation pan2 . The appearance of the voids did not allow us to achieve larger values of the overall mass density for the core (figures 2). A further increase in the amount of the Mg+2B mixture in the powder composition leads to a further reduction of the nano-scale porosity and a further development of the large scale voids (figures 1(c, d)). Any trace of the porosity disappears for the sample with $`x=0.7`$. However, one can still see a fine granular structure of ex-situ particles within the in-situ formed MgB2 matrix in between the voids. The matrix looks very dense in contrast to the samples with smaller $`x`$ values, but the overall density, due to the voids, turns out to be quite small in comparison with those samples. The sample with $`x=1`$, in contrast to all the other samples, shows a monolithic core matrix around large scale voids (figure 1(e)). No small particles are observed within the matrix. Generally, the grain size of the in-situ formed MgB2 superconductor is likely to be up to two orders of magnitude larger dou  than the ex-situ particles found in samples with $`x<1`$. The volume occupied by the voids is the largest among all the samples investigated. Note also that this sample has the lowest overall mass density $`1.17\times 10^3`$ kg/m3 (figure 2).

The estimated density of the samples after sintering as a function of the amount of the Mg+2B mixture added is shown in Fig. 2. As mentioned above, we also estimated the density for two samples with $`x=0`$ and 1 before sintering. These estimations were more difficult because the core is rather loose at this stage, hence, the experimental error is slightly larger. The behavior after sintering is linear within the error of the estimation. In spite of having only two points for the unsintered samples we anticipated a linear dependence for those samples, as well. Notably, there is an insignificant difference between the curves. This means that after MgB2 formation the core shrinks and the space created due to the difference in theoretical densities between the Mg+2B mixture ($`2.0\times 10^3`$ kg/m3) and MgB2 ($`2.63\times 10^3`$ kg/m3) directly transforms to voids which can take up to 24% of the overall core volume for the sample with $`x=1`$. This conclusion is also supported by SEM observations (the left column in Fig. 1 gives a comparative idea on the volume of the voids formed). As a matter of fact, an experimental 30% difference in the packing density between MgB2 and Mg+2B mixture before HT in Fig. 2 is in a good agreement with the theoretical density difference of 24% mentioned above.

XRD analysis basically showed the expected result: reflection peak patterns for all investigated samples are consistent with a well-formed MgB2 composition. A typical XRD pattern can be found, for example, in Fig. 1 in Ref. pan1  for the Fe-sheathed tape. The same critical temperature onset $`T_c^{\mathrm{onset}}=38.6\pm 0.1`$ K defined at $`4\pi M/B_a=10^4`$ for all the samples further supports the structural similarity of both MgB2 components: pre-reacted and formed in-situ. The difference in the onset of the transition temperature is negligible compared to the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ of the transition. Indeed, the transition width significantly changes from $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c1.75`$ K for $`x=1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c4.85`$ K for $`x=0`$ (Fig. 3), which is the first sign of the changing pinning properties described in the next subsection.

### III.2 Critical current density and vortex pinning

Figure 4 shows the critical current density as a function of the applied magnetic field $`B_a`$ for all the investigated samples at $`T=20`$ K. The smallest $`J_c`$ was measured for the sample with $`x=0`$ (pure ex-situ preparation) over the entire field and temperature range investigated. The general trend is straightforward: the larger the $`x`$, the higher the $`J_c`$. At $`B_a<1.2`$ T, we can anticipate a nominally higher $`J_c`$ for the $`x=1`$ (pure in-situ preparation) sample than for the other samples, although it is masked by the thermo-magnetic flux-jump instabilities. The flux-jumps at this temperature are absent for all the other samples prepared, most probably indicating that the pure in-situ preparation has the largest shielding current across well-connected, presumably large MgB2 grains amongst all the samples. This is also in agreement with the fact that the highest Meissner shielding factor (the largest susceptibility $`|4\pi M/B_a|`$) was observed below the transition temperature for this sample (figure 3). At lower temperatures, flux-jumps appear for all the samples ($`0.3x1`$) except the one with $`x=0`$ (figure 5). As can be clearly seen from the magnetization curves, the flux-jumps do not appear for this sample at all, down to at least $`T=5`$ K. This fact, along with the very low $`J_c(B_a)`$, is likely to indicate the small ex-situ grain size and a lack of connectivity (transparency) between these grains. A significant increase in $`J_c`$ is achieved by an addition of the Mg+2B powder and the consequent in-situ reaction assistance. However, already starting from $`x=0.3`$, $`J_c(B_a)`$ curves as a function of $`x`$ become less sensitive to the level of the Mg+2B powder addition (figure 4).

The irreversibility field $`B_{\mathrm{irr}}`$ defined at $`J_c=100`$ A/cm2 increases with increasing $`x`$ (figure 4). For the sample with $`x=0`$, $`B_{\mathrm{irr}}=3.9`$ T, whereas for $`x=1`$, $`B_{\mathrm{irr}}5.2`$ T. Furthermore, one can see that for the pure ex-situ prepared sample the $`J_c(B_a)`$ curve has a rapid drop at about 2.5 T defined at the point where an exponential fit to the linear $`J_c(B_a)`$ interval in the $`\mathrm{log}J_c`$-$`B_a`$ scale diverges from the $`J_c(B_a)`$ measured (figure 4). The drop shifts to higher fields with increasing $`x`$. For the sample with $`x=1`$ there is only a slight indication of a drop at about $`B_a=4.6`$ T which is quite close to the irreversibility (depinning) field. In the samples with intermediate levels of $`x=0.3`$ and 0.5 the drop occurs at about 3.6 T. The drop is likely to occur when the “weak links” stop contributing to the overall current of the superconductor as suggested in dou . These “weak links”, even in the purely ex-situ prepared wire, appear to be rather strong if they are compared to high-$`T_c`$ BSCCO tapes, where a similar downturn is usually expected to occur below 0.1 T joseph . However, we should note that the approach used in dou  to calculate $`J_c`$ for intra-granular currents at high fields did not work in our case for the sample with $`x=0`$, where the average particle size ($`3\mu `$m) could be estimated with the help of SEM image analysis (figure 1(a)). According to our $`J_c`$ calculation for the sample with $`x=0`$, the critical current density at high fields appeared to be higher than the value of $`J_c(0)`$. An inhomogeneous particle compression inside the core, forming some larger and better connected conglomerates, might be responsible for the failure of the intra-granular current determination. Note that in Ref. dou , where an in-situ preparation samples were discussed, a grain size of $`170\times 260\mu `$m was used for the calculation.

An additional bit of information can provide the field dependence of $`J_c`$. To a large extent, $`J_c(B_a)`$ can be described by an exponential function ($`J_c\mathrm{exp}(\alpha B_a`$), where the pre-factor $`\alpha `$ is a pinning dependent parameter, changing with $`B_a`$, $`T`$, and the microstructure). The lines shown in figure 4 are exponential fits to the corresponding linear $`J_c(B_a)`$ intervals in the $`\mathrm{log}J_c`$-$`B_a`$ scale, which means that in this field range $`\alpha `$ depends only on the core microstructure. Correspondingly, in the inset to Fig. 4 the pre-factor $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`x`$ is shown. One sees that the sample with $`x=0`$ has the slowest $`J_c`$ degradation within the fitted interval just before the $`J_c`$ drop. We argue that this is due to the pinning of vortices along grain boundaries in the samples. The more grain boundaries, the slower the pinning decrease until the weak links stop contributing to the total current, which happens at rather high fields.

Thus, on the basis of microstructure analysis and magnetic measurements we can propose the following scenario for describing the $`J_c`$ behavior as a function of $`x`$. The smaller $`x`$ is, the more small ex-situ grains and, correspondingly, the more boundaries there are in the core. These boundaries possess rather low current-carrying transparency, since the level of the overall current transparency decreases with decreasing $`x`$. It is evident from the smaller values of the $`J_c`$ measured for smaller values of $`x`$ (with the lowest $`J_c`$ obtained for the $`x=0`$ sample). However, a certain level of connectivity between the grains survives up to rather high field values (until the $`J_c`$ drop). A large amount of grain boundaries ensures the largest amount of pinning centers in the sample with $`x=0`$. Hence, the slowest $`J_c`$ degradation with field is measured. As soon as $`B_a`$ starts breaking “weak links” at the grain boundaries, the vortices start rearranging themselves so that a significant $`J_c`$ drop occurs. In addition, to complete the description of the sample with $`x=0`$ (purely ex-situ prepared sample) we explain the first $`J_c`$ decrease at $`B_a<0.3`$ T which is not measured for any other sample investigated in this work. SEM investigation shows that the core has both loosely and densely packed particle conglomerates (observable in figure 1(a)), which leads to the failure of the grain size related $`J_c`$ estimation at high fields. These facts suggest that the connectivity between grains is quite inhomogeneous. Therefore, the first $`J_c`$ drop below 0.3 T is likely to be due to the loosely packed (porous) regions with presumably the weakest grain connectivity, whereas the second drop at higher fields is due to decoupling of the stronger packed and larger volume regions.

As $`x`$ is increased, an enhanced connectivity (transparency) between the small ex-situ grains is introduced through formation of the in-situ matrix consisting of much larger grains. On the other hand, the amount of the pinning boundaries is reduced. As a consequence of the interplay between transparency and amount of pinning boundaries, one achieves larger $`J_c`$ values with their faster degradation as a function of $`B_a`$ (see the inset in figure 4). For the sample with $`x=1`$, the effect of the boundaries is minimal: maximum boundary transparency and minimal quantity of boundaries are responsible for respectively the highest $`J_c`$ and for the fastest $`J_c(B_a)`$ degradation. The maximum boundary transparency and the highest $`J_c`$ are also responsible for the strongest thermo-magnetic instabilities observed in the widest field range in this purely in-situ prepared sample (figure 5 for $`T=10`$ K). It is worth noting that the large scale voids are expected to affect neither actual $`J_c`$ value, nor the flux-jumps. The voids do, however, affect the overall $`I_c`$ of the wires by reducing the superconducting volume and the effective super-current path cross section. This means that the real $`J_c`$ in the samples with $`x>0`$ can be up to 24% higher for the sample with $`x=1`$, compared to the calculated values shown in figure 4.

Undoubtedly, larger values of $`B_{\mathrm{irr}}`$ and $`J_c`$ in the entire applied field range illustrate a significant advantage of the pure in-situ and of in-situ assisted wire preparation over the pure ex-situ procedure. However, the danger of the flux-jump effect becomes stronger with increasing $`x`$ (Figs. 4 and 5). As can be seen, at $`T<20`$ K, the flux-jumps become apparent not only for the sample with $`x=1`$, but also for the other samples, except for $`x=0`$. Therefore, these instabilities provide an example of how nominally better samples can actually be worse for practical applications. Indeed, some applications of wires which might have an unstable superconducting state would be highly problematic. Moreover, our preliminary results paniron2  show that the flux-jump effect is even stronger in the iron sheath, occurring over a wider field range, than in the case presented in this work, where the sheath is removed from the wires. This is quite understandable, since the iron has low thermal conductivity, which worsens the thermal sink environment of the superconductor, compared to the environment of the steady cold helium gas flow around the bare core. Therefore, the chance of experiencing instabilities in such an environment is higher inst . Small resistivity sheath materials, such as copper, silver, and aluminium, which could stabilize the wires stab , were shown to be too soft to form an acceptable level of $`I_c`$ and chemically incompatible for in-situ MgB2 core preparation pan1 . Furthermore, a highly promising drastic enhancement of $`J_c(B_a)`$ performance by SiC nano-particle doping in MgB2 wires has been obtained by the in-situ preparation method, as was recently reported by authors pansic1 ; pansic2 . It is at present unclear whether it would be possible to obtain similar characteristics for MgB2-x(SiC)x superconducting wires prepared by the ex-situ procedure. On the basis of the present study, we can anticipate that the pinning effect of SiC nano-doping might be overruled by the grain boundary effect described above. However, further study is needed to clarify the issue. Generally, the literature shows that the flux-jumps are usually obtained for in-situ prepared samples pan3 ; xiaolin ; pansic1 ; pansic2 ; dou , whereas for ex-situ preparation the flux-jumps are rarely observed. Moreover, the flux-jumps disappear if any second stage mechanical treatment that crashes the core is involved pan3 . It is further shown in Ref. pan3  that a consecutive heat-treatment is not able to re-join the grains, so that the chance for flux-jump occurrence in those samples is low.

A lower current transparency of the grain boundaries in the case of the ex-situ preparation than in the case of the in-situ preparation can also explain the usually larger resistivity, measured just above the critical temperature, for the ex-situ prepared samples (typically $`>50\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm) than for the in-situ preparation (0.4-1 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm), see 16  and corresponding references therein. Assuming this is the case for our samples and taking into account the fact that the irreversibility field $`B_{\mathrm{irr}}`$ increases with increasing $`x`$, we conclude that the difference in the resistance is due to different grain boundary transparencies obtained by the in-situ or ex-situ procedure. Therefore, we expect that these different preparation procedures would produce superconductors belonging either to the clean- or dirty-limit. A procedure for “polluting” clean-limit MgB2 samples by annealing them in Mg vapor in order to obtain a higher $`B_{\mathrm{irr}}`$, can be found in 16 .

## IV Conclusion

From studying samples with different initial powder composition (MgB2)1-x:(Mg+2B)x where $`x`$ varies from 0 to 1, we found that the critical current density as a function of the applied field is larger over the entire field range for samples with $`x>0`$. An addition of the unreacted Mg+2B mixture to the MgB2 powder enhances the transparency of the grain boundaries, introducing an MgB2 matrix that is formed in-situ with embedded small MgB2 “ex-situ” particles (for $`x<1`$). The grain boundaries are found to be responsible for the pinning of vortices. The larger $`x`$ is, the smaller the amount of pinning boundaries, so that $`J_c(B_a)`$ decays faster. A pure in-situ reaction ($`x=1`$) forms a core with nominally the best characteristics, despite the fastest field degradation. However, we emphasize the following features which may affect the employment of the pure in-situ procedure for commercial wire fabrication. (i) Thermo-magnetic instabilities which are highly undesirable for high-current and field applications are strongly pronounced within quite a wide field range up to $`T=20`$ K which is considered to be a benchmark for this material. (ii) The other feature is large scale void formation in the core which can lead up to 24% lower overall critical current than the theoretically achievable one.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank T. Silver for careful reading of the manuscript and valuable critical remarks. This work was financially supported by the Australian Research Council.