text:
# Magneto-optical rotation of spectrally impure fields and its nonlinear dependence on optical density

## I Introduction

A very useful way to get important spectroscopic information is by measuring magneto-optical rotation (MOR) of a plane polarized light propagating through a medium rmp . Clearly it is desirable to obtain as large an angle of rotation as possible conn ; gsa . It is known that the angle of rotation is proportional to the density of the medium. Thus an increase in density will help in achieving large rotation angles. Recently, very large rotation angles in a cold sample have been reported kaiser . In this experiment, optical densities of the order of $`1020`$ were achieved. This experiment also reported a very interesting result, viz., the departure from the linear dependence of the rotation angle on the optical density. This departure has been ascribed to the nonmonochromatic nature of the input laser. The findings of the experiment warrant a quantitative analysis of the dependence of the rotation angle on the spectral profile of the input laser. We present a first principle calculation of this dependence. Note that a nonlinear dependence on optical density cannot result from a simple argument based on the standard formula for the rotation angle $`\theta `$:

$$\theta =\pi kl\text{Re}(\chi _{}\chi _+),$$
(1)
where, $`k`$ is the wave-number of the electric field, $`l`$ is the length of the medium, and $`\chi _\pm `$ represent the linear susceptibilities of the medium for right or left circularly polarized components of the input field. Since $`\chi _\pm `$ are proportional to the number density, the rotation angle becomes proportional to the optical density $`\alpha `$ defined by

$$\alpha =\frac{3\lambda ^2}{2\pi }Nl,$$
(2)
where, $`\lambda =2\pi /k`$ is the wavelength of the input field, $`N`$ is the number density of the atomic medium. If one were to argue that spectrally impure laser field would replace $`\chi _\pm `$ by their averages over the width of the laser, then $`\theta `$ would continue to be proportional to the optical density $`\alpha `$. A more quantitative analysis of the rotation angle is thus warranted.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we recapitulate the relevant equations for studies of MOR in atomic medium. In Sec. III, we describe a simple three-level atomic configuration in the context of MOR and discuss the effect of laser line-shape and magnetic field in a thick atomic medium. In Sec. IV, we consider experimental configuration used in kaiser . We show, how in an optically thick medium, one deviates from the linear dependence of rotation on optical density as a result of the spectral impurity of the laser field. We give a quantitative analysis of the experimental data.

## II Basic equations

Let us consider that an atomic medium of length $`l`$ is resonantly excited by a monochromatic $`\widehat{x}`$-polarized electric field

$$\stackrel{}{E}(z,t)=\widehat{x}e^{ikzi\omega t}+\text{c.c.},$$
(3)
where, $``$ is the field amplitude and $`k=\omega /c=2\pi /\lambda `$ is the wave number of the field, $`\omega `$ and $`\lambda `$ being the corresponding angular frequency and wavelength. The field is propagating in $`z`$-direction. Clearly, we can resolve the amplitude of the electric field into its two circular components as

$$\widehat{x}\widehat{ϵ}_+_++\widehat{ϵ}_{}_{},$$
(4)
where, $`_\pm =/\sqrt{2}`$ are the amplitude components along two circular polarization $`\widehat{ϵ}_\pm =(\widehat{x}\pm i\widehat{y})/\sqrt{2}`$.

While passing through the atomic medium these two circular components behave differently due to the anisotropy of the medium. Let $`\chi _\pm `$ be the susceptibilities of the medium corresponding to the two circular components. The electric field at the exit face of the medium can be written as

$`\stackrel{}{E}(l,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}_le^{ikzi\omega t}+\text{c.c.},`$
$`\stackrel{}{}_l`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\widehat{ϵ}_+_+e^{2\pi ikl\chi _+}+\widehat{ϵ}_{}_{}e^{2\pi ikl\chi _{}}\right],`$ (5)
where, we have assumed that the medium is dilute so that $`|4\pi \chi _\pm |1`$. In MOR, the polarization direction of the input electric field gets rotated due to the difference in their dispersions (phase shifts) in a non-attenuating medium. The electric field however, remains linearly polarized after passing through the medium. In the present case, because the atom interacts with near-resonant electric field, the two circular components suffer attenuation (given by the imaginary part of $`\chi _\pm `$) while propagating through the medium. Thus the medium, concerned here, is responsible for both dispersion and attenuation. We term the medium to be both circularly birefringent and circularly dichroic. The output electric field becomes elliptically polarized under the action of such a medium. Thus to fully characterize the polarization state of the output field, one has to use the Stokes parameters born . The four Stokes parameters for an electric field are designated by $`S_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$) and can be defined as follows:

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`I_{}+I_{},`$ (6a)
$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`I_{}I_{},`$ (6b)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{45^o}I_{45^o},`$ (6c)
$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`I_{\sigma _+}I_\sigma _{},`$ (6d)
where, $`I_{\widehat{n}}`$ is the measured intensity along the polarization direction $`\widehat{n}`$. Then the output polarization state can be characterized by the following three quantities:

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{S_1^2+S_2^2+S_3^2}}{S_0}},`$ (7a)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_2}{S_1}}(0\theta <\pi ),`$ (7b)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_3}{S_0P}}(\pi /4<\varphi \pi /4),`$ (7c)
where, $`P`$ is the degree of polarization, i.e., the ratio of the intensities of the polarized component to the unpolarized one, $`\theta `$ is the Faraday rotation angle of the input field and is measured between the major axis of the ellipse and the $`x`$-axis, $`\varphi `$ provides the ellipticity of polarization through the relation $`e=\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$.

From Eq. (5) one can express the output intensities along different polarization directions in the following way:

$`I_{}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`|\widehat{x}.\stackrel{}{}_l|^2={\displaystyle \frac{I_o}{4}}|e^{2\pi ikl\chi _+}+e^{2\pi ikl\chi _{}}|^2,`$ (8a)
$`I_{}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`|\widehat{y}.\stackrel{}{}_l|^2={\displaystyle \frac{I_o}{4}}|e^{2\pi ikl\chi _+}e^{2\pi ikl\chi _{}}|^2,`$ (8b)
$`I_{\pm 45^o}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{x}\pm \widehat{y}}{\sqrt{2}}}.\stackrel{}{}_l|^2`$ (8c)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_o}{8}}|(1\pm i)e^{2\pi ikl\chi _+}+(1i)e^{2\pi ikl\chi _{}}|^2,`$
$`I_{\sigma _\pm }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`|\widehat{ϵ}_\pm .\stackrel{}{}_l|^2={\displaystyle \frac{I_o}{2}}\mathrm{exp}[4\pi kl.\text{Im}(\chi _\pm )],`$ (8d)
where, $`I_o=||^2`$ is the input intensity of laser field.

Note that all the measured quantities defined by Eq. (8) are functions of the frequency of the exciting field. If the exciting field is spectrally impure, then the Stokes parameters $`S_\alpha `$ are to be obtained by averaging over the spectrum $`S(\omega )`$ of the laser field. Thus, $`I`$’s in Eq. (6) are to be obtained from

$$I_{\widehat{n}}=\frac{1}{I_o}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega I_{\widehat{n}}(\omega )S(\omega ).$$
(9)
For simplicity, we can adopt, say, a Lorentzian line-shape for the input

$$S(\omega )I_o\frac{\gamma _c/\pi }{\gamma _c^2+(\omega \omega _l)^2},$$
(10)
where, $`\omega _l`$ is the central frequency of the laser field and $`2\gamma _c`$ is the full width at half maximum. We will demonstrate how the fluctuations of the input field leads to the nonlinear dependence of the rotation angle on optical density.

## III A simplified atomic model

We first consider a three-level atom in $`V`$ configuration (see Fig. 1) in order to uncover the effect of optical density on MOR. The levels $`|\pm `$ ($`J_e=1,m_e=\pm 1`$) are coupled to the ground state $`|g`$ ($`J_g=0,m_g=0`$) by two circular components $`\sigma _\pm `$ of $`\widehat{x}`$-polarized electric field \[Eq. (3)\]. The excited level degeneracy has been removed by an uniform magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ applied in the direction of propagation of the applied electric field. The levels $`|e_\pm `$ are shifted about line-center by an amount of $`\mu _BB/\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mu _B`$=Bohr magneton). The field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is detuned from the line center by an amount $`\delta =\omega _{+g}(B=0)\omega `$, $`\omega _{+g}(B=0)`$ being the atomic transition frequency in absence of the magnetic field.

The susceptibilities of the $`\sigma _\pm `$ components inside the medium can be written as

$$\chi _\pm =\frac{N|\stackrel{}{d}|^2}{\mathrm{}\gamma }\rho _\pm ;\rho _\pm =\frac{i\gamma }{\gamma +i(\delta s)},$$
(11)
where, $`2\gamma =4|\stackrel{}{d}|^2\omega ^3/3\mathrm{}c^3`$ is the spontaneous decay rate of the levels $`|\pm `$, $`|\stackrel{}{d}|`$ is the magnitude of the dipole moment vector for the transitions $`|\pm |g`$, $`N`$ is the atomic number density, and $`s=\mu _BB/\mathrm{}`$ is the Zeeman splitting of the excited levels. Using these $`\chi _\pm `$, we can now write the field amplitude from Eq. (5) as

$$\stackrel{}{}_0=\left[\widehat{ϵ}_+_+e^{i\frac{\alpha }{2}\rho _+}+\widehat{ϵ}_{}_{}e^{i\frac{\alpha }{2}\rho _{}}\right],$$
(12)
where, $`\alpha =4\pi klN|\stackrel{}{d}|^2/\mathrm{}\gamma =(3\lambda ^2/2\pi )Nl`$ is the optical density of the medium.

In what follows, we will assume that $`\omega _l=\omega _{+g}(B=0)`$. We calculate $`I_{\widehat{n}}`$’s using Eqs. (10) and (9) numerically for different values of $`\gamma _c`$ and $`s`$. We show the results in Fig. 2. We clearly see that for $`\gamma _cs`$, the rotation angle $`\theta `$ is linearly proportional to $`\alpha `$. But for $`\gamma _cs`$, this variation deviates from linearity in large $`\alpha `$ domain. This behavior can be explained in terms of the off-resonant components which dominate for the large $`\gamma _c`$ and large $`\alpha `$.

In order to understand the numerical results, we first consider the limit of small optical densities whence

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[2+\alpha \text{Re}\{i(\rho _++\rho _{})\}],`$ (13a)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\text{Re}(\rho _{}\rho _+).`$ (13b)
Thus, the departure of the rotation angle from the linearity has to do with the averages of the exponentials appearing in $`I`$’s \[Eq. (8)\]. If one were to make the approximation of replacing all $`\chi `$’s in Eq. (8) by their averages, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{exp}[2\pi ikl\chi _\pm ]\mathrm{exp}[2\pi ikl\chi _\pm ],$$
(14)
then the Stokes parameters $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ would be

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}(\rho _2^++\rho _2^{})}\mathrm{cos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\rho _1^+\rho _1^{})\right],`$ (15a)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\alpha }{2}(\rho _2^++\rho _2^{})}\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\rho _1^+\rho _1^{})\right],`$ (15b)
where, $`\rho _\pm =\rho _1^\pm +i\rho _2^\pm `$ and thus

$$\theta =\frac{\alpha }{4}(\rho _1^{}\rho _1^+)=\frac{1}{2}.\frac{\alpha \gamma s}{(\gamma +\gamma _c)^2+s^2}.$$
(16)
Clearly, the absorption does not contribute to the rotation angle. We have again recovered the linear dependence of $`\theta `$ on $`\alpha `$, provided the approximation (14) is valid. Thus, any departure in linearity of $`\theta `$ with respect to $`\alpha `$ indicates the breakdown the approximation (14). The numerical results of Fig. 2 clearly show the breakdown of the mean field description obtained by replacing $`\chi `$’s by their average values.

From the Eq. (16), we readily see that in the low $`\alpha `$-domain, by increasing $`s`$ (or $`\gamma _c`$) while keeping $`\gamma _c`$ (or $`s`$) constant, the slope of $`\theta `$ with $`\alpha `$ decreases. This is clear from the numerical results of Fig. 2. Also, for larger values of $`\gamma _c`$, variation of $`\theta `$ with $`\alpha `$ is deviated from linearity. Linear variation of $`\theta `$ with $`\alpha `$ is attributed to the monochromatic laser field. If the electric field is spectrally impure, then the off-resonant components also contribute to $`\theta `$, through the relations (9), (6), and (7). Thus, $`\theta `$ starts varying with $`\alpha `$ linearly in low $`\alpha `$ limit, then saturates, and finally decreases to zero to change the direction of rotation, for larger $`\gamma _c`$ (see Fig. 2). But for smaller $`\gamma _c`$, the linear behavior is retained even for larger $`\alpha `$, as the off-resonant components are not dominant in this parameter zone.

Next we consider the variation of the degree of polarization $`P`$ and the ellipticity $`e`$ with $`\alpha `$. We have noticed that $`P`$ decreases from unity for increasing $`\alpha `$. This means that the output field no longer remains fully polarized, rather it becomes partially polarized.

Again, from the Eqs. (6d), (8d), and (11), it is clear that an integration over the entire range of detuning $`\delta `$ would yield $`S_3=0`$, as the integrand is an odd function of $`\omega `$. Thus the ellipticity $`e`$ becomes zero. This means that the polarized part of the output field remains linear.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the output field gets rotated as a manifestation of cumulative effect of optical density, magnetic field, and laser line-width. Also it becomes partially polarized with no ellipticity.

## IV Quantitative modeling of experimental results of Labeyrie et al. for MOR in spectrally impure fields

We now extend our understanding of resonant MOR as described in the previous section to explain the experimental data of Labeyrie et al.. In their experiment, a cold atomic cloud of Rb85 is subjected to a static magnetic field. The laser probe beam passing through the medium in the direction of the magnetic field is tuned to the D2 line of the atoms (2S$`{}_{1/2}{}^{}`$ 2P3/2; $`\lambda `$=780.2 nm). They have measured the intensities of outputs with different polarizations, as function of laser detuning and also at different values of optical density. They have found a nonlinear dependence of the MOR angle $`\theta `$ on optical density. They found for larger magnetic field that the linear behavior is recovered.

To explain these observations, we consider the relevant energy levels of Rb85 as used in the experiment (see Fig. 3). The $`\widehat{x}`$-polarized electric field (3) is applied to cold Rb85 medium near resonantly. The medium is subjected to uniform magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ applied in the $`z`$-direction, i.e., along the direction of propagation of (3).

### IV.1 Calculation of $`\chi _\pm `$ and optical density

The circular components $`\sigma _\pm `$ of the input electric field (3) interact with the transitions $`m_em_g=m_e1`$ and $`m_em_g=m_e+1`$, respectively. We assume that the electric field is weak enough so that it is sufficient to use the linear response of the system to the laser field. We neglect the ground-state coherences. As we are considering the cold atoms, we neglect the collisional relaxations and Doppler broadening of the sublevels. We also assume that the atomic population is equally distributed over all the ground sublevels.

Using all these assumptions, we can write the susceptibilities $`\chi _\pm `$ for the $`\sigma _\pm `$ components as the sum of the susceptibilities of all the relevant $`m_em_g`$ transitions in the following way:

$$\chi _\pm \underset{m_e,m_g}{}\frac{1}{7}\frac{N|\stackrel{}{d}_{m_e,m_g}.\widehat{ϵ}_\pm |^2}{\mathrm{}}.\frac{i}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m_e,m_g}+i(\delta +s_{m_e,m_g})},$$
(17)
where, $`s_{m_e,m_g}=(g_gm_gg_em_e)s`$ is the relative amount of Zeeman shift of the excited sublevel $`m_e`$ with respect to the Zeeman shifted ground sublevel $`m_g`$, $`g_g=1/3`$ and $`g_e=1/2`$ are the Landé-g factors of the ground and excited levels, respectively. The factor $`1/7`$ comes into the expression (17) as we have assumed equal population distribution in all the $`(2F_g+1)=7`$ ground sublevels. The coherence relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m_e,m_g}`$ in Eq. (17) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m_e,m_g}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\gamma _{k,m_e},$$
(18)
where, $`\gamma _{i,j}`$ is the spontaneous relaxation rate from the sublevel $`j`$ to $`i`$. Here we have assumed that there is no spontaneous relaxation from the ground sublevels. The terms $`\stackrel{}{d}_{m_e,m_g}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m_e,m_g}`$’s can be calculated from the relevant Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (see Fig. 3) sobel . The Einstein’s A coefficient for the D2 line is known to be

$$A=\frac{4\omega ^3}{3\mathrm{}c^3}\frac{|(J=\frac{3}{2}DJ^{}=\frac{1}{2})|^2}{4}=\frac{4\omega ^3}{3\mathrm{}c^3}\frac{|(\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2},4D\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2},3)|^2}{9},$$
(19)
where, $`(D)`$ represents the reduced matrix element of the dipole moment vector $`\stackrel{}{d}_{m_e,m_g}`$. The three symbols $`3/2`$, $`5/2`$, and $`4`$ correspond to $`J`$, $`I`$, and $`F`$ values respectively of the upper levels. Thus all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m_e,m_g}`$’s in (17) are found to be equal to $`(4\omega ^3/3\mathrm{}c^3)|(\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2},4D\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2},3)|^2/2`$.

We calculate the optical density $`\alpha `$ of the medium, when the input light field is resonant with $`m_e=0m_g=0`$ transition ($`\delta =0`$) in the absence of any magnetic field ($`B=0`$). For this, we first obtain the total output intensity from Eq. (6a) averaged by a very narrow laser line-shape, i.e., in the limit $`\gamma _c0`$. Using Eq. (17), we thus find that the transmittivity of the medium becomes

$$T=\frac{1}{I_o}S_0_{\gamma _c0}=\frac{1}{I_o}S_0|_{\delta =0}=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ),$$
(20)
where, $`\alpha =(3/7).(3\lambda ^2/2\pi )Nl`$. It should be borne in mind that it is different from the definition in Sec. III.

### IV.2 Discussions

Using the above expressions of $`\chi _\pm `$ \[Eq. (17)\] and Eq. (9), we calculate the averaged intensities $`I_{\widehat{n}}`$ in different polarization directions. The Stokes parameters $`S_\alpha `$, degree of polarization $`P`$, and the Faraday rotation $`\theta `$ are calculated using the relations (7). In Fig. 4, we show how the Faraday angle $`\theta `$ varies with the optical density $`\alpha `$ for different values of $`\gamma _c`$ and $`B`$. Clearly, for $`\gamma _cs`$, the rotation angle $`\theta `$ varies linearly with $`\alpha `$. But for larger $`\gamma _c`$ ($`s`$), the variation of $`\theta `$ with $`\alpha `$ deviates from linearity in large $`\alpha `$. This is because the off-resonant components contribute to the output intensity. Also, note that for a given value of $`\gamma _c`$, if $`s`$ is increased, the linearity is maintained even in the large $`\alpha `$-domain. This is because for larger $`s`$, the off-resonant components do not contribute much to the output intensity. The resonant frequency component is always dominant in the optical density range considered. We also note that, as $`\gamma _c`$ increases, the linear slope of $`\theta `$ with $`\alpha `$ decreases in the small $`\alpha `$ domain.

In Fig. 5, we show the variation of degree of polarization $`P`$ with $`\alpha `$ for various values of the $`B`$ and $`\gamma _c`$. These results reveal that with increase in $`\alpha `$, the degree of polarization deviates from unity, i.e., the output electric field not only rotates in polarization, but also it becomes partially polarized. However, the ellipticity of the output field still remains zero as we have argued in Sec. III.

## V conclusions

In summary, we have given a quantitative analysis of magneto-optical rotation of spectrally impure fields in optically thick cold Rb85 atomic medium. We have shown that the dependence of rotation on the optical density of the medium deviates from linearity due to the finite laser linewidth. Using our model, we explain the experimental results of Labeyrie et al..


format: text

text:
# Magnetic Monopole Searches

## 1 Introduction

In 1931 Dirac introduced the magnetic monopole in order to explain the quantization of the electric charge, which follows from the existence of at least one free magnetic charge . He established the basic relationship between the elementary electric charge $`e`$ and the basic magnetic charge $`g`$

$$eg=n\mathrm{}c/2$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is an integer, $`n=1,2,..`$. The magnetic charge is $`g=ng_D`$$`g_D=\mathrm{}c/2e=68.5e`$ is called the unit Dirac charge. The existence of magnetic charges and of magnetic currents would symmetrize in form the Maxwell’s equations, but the symmetry would not be perfect since $`eg`$. But the couplings could perhaps be energy dependent and they could merge in a single common value at very high energies .

There was no prediction for the MM mass; from 1931 searches for “classical Dirac monopoles” were carried out at every new accelerator using mainly relatively simple set -ups, and recently also large collider detectors \[3-9\]. Searches at the Fermilab collider seem to exclude MMs with masses up to 850 GeV. Experiments at the LEP2 collider exclude masses below 102 GeV .
Electric charge is naturally quantized in GUT gauge theories of the basic interactions; such theories imply the existence of MMs, with calculable properties. The MMs appear in the Early Universe at the phase transition corresponding to the spontaneous breaking of the unified group into subgroups, one of which is U(1) . The MM mass is related to the mass of the carriers X, Y of the unified interaction, $`m_Mm_X/G`$, where G is the dimensionless unified coupling constant at energies E $`m_X`$. In GUTs with $`m_X10^{14}10^{15}`$ GeV and $`G0.025`$, $`m_M>10^{16}10^{17}`$ GeV. This is an enormous mass: MMs cannot be produced at any man–made accelerator, existing or conceivable. They could only be produced in the first instants of our Universe and can be searched for in the penetrating Cosmic Radiation (CR).
Larger MM masses are expected if gravity is brought into the unification picture, and in some SuperSymmetric models.
Intermediate mass monopoles (IMMs) may have been produced in later phase transitions in the Early Universe, in which a semisimple gauge group yields a U(1) group . IMMs with masses $`10^5÷10^{12}`$ GeV may be accelerated to relativistic velocities in the galactic magnetic field, and in several astrophysical sites. It has been speculated that very energetic IMMs could yield the highest energy cosmic rays .
The lowest mass MM should be stable, since magnetic charge is conserved like electric charge. Therefore, the MMs produced in the Early Universe should still exist as cosmic relics, whose kinetic energy has been affected first by the expansion of the Universe and then by their travel through galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields.
GUT poles in the CR should have low velocities and relatively large energy losses; they are best searched for underground in the penetrating cosmic radiation. IMMs could be relativistic and may be searched for at high altitude laboratories, in the downgoing CR and, if very energetic, also in the upgoing CR.
In this lecture we shall review the present experimental situation on MM searches with emphasis on classical Dirac monopoles and on Intermediate Mass MMs. Recently there has been renewed interest in the search for relatively low–mass Dirac MMs. In fact there seem to be no a priori reasons that Dirac MMs (or dyons) might not exist .

## 2 Main properties of magnetic monopoles

The main properties of MMs are obtained from the Dirac relation (1), and are summarized here. We recall that the Dirac relation may be easily obtained semiclassically by considering the system of one monopole and one electron, and quantizing the radial component of the total angular momentum.

\- Magnetic charge. If $`n`$ =1 and if the basic electric charge is that of the electron, then the basic magnetic charge is $`g_D=\mathrm{}c/2e=137e/2=3.29\times 10^8cgs=68.5e`$. The magnetic charge should be larger if $`n>1`$ and also if the basic electric charge is $`e/3`$.

\- Coupling constant. In analogy with the fine structure constant, $`\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c1/137`$, the dimensionless magnetic coupling constant is $`\alpha _g=g_D^2/\mathrm{}c34.25`$; notice that it is very large, much larger than 1, and thus perturbative methods cannot be used.

\- Energy W acquired in a magnetic field B$`W=ng_DB\mathrm{}=n20.5`$ keV/G cm. In a coherent galactic–length ($`\mathrm{}1`$ kpc, and $`B3\mu `$G), the energy gained by a monopole is $`W1.8\times 10^{11}`$ GeV. Classical poles and IMMs in the cosmic radiation could be accelerated to relativistic velocities. Instead GUT poles have large masses and are expected to have relatively low velocities, $`10^4<\beta <10^1`$.

\- Trapping of MMs in ferromagnetic materials. MMs may be trapped in ferromagnetic materials by an image force, which could reach the value of $`10`$ eV/Å.

\- Electrically charged monopoles (dyons) may arise as quantum–mechanical excitations or as M–p, M-nucleus composites.

\- There is no real prediction of the mass of classical Dirac MMs. One may have a rough estimate assuming that the classical monopole radius is equal to the classical electron radius: $`r_M=\frac{g^2}{m_Mc^2}=r_e=\frac{e^2}{m_ec^2}`$, from which $`m_M=\frac{g^2m_e}{e^2}n4700m_en2.4GeV/c^2`$. Thus the mass should be relatively large and even larger if the basic charge is $`e/3`$ and if $`n>1`$.

Also the interactions of MMs with matter are connected with the electromagnetic properties of MMs and thus are consequences of the Dirac relation. It is also important to know whether the quantity and quality of energy lost by a MM in a particle detector is adequate for its detection. The interaction of the MM magnetic charge with nuclear magnetic dipoles could lead to the formation of M–nucleus bound systems. This may affect the energy loss in matter and the cross–section for MM catalysis of proton decay. A monopole–proton bound state may be produced via radiative capture, $`M+p(M+p)_{bound}+\gamma `$. Monopole–nucleus bound states may exist for nuclei with a large gyromagnetic ratio.

\- Energy losses of fast poles. A fast MM with magnetic charge $`g_D`$ and velocity $`v=\beta c`$ behaves like an equivalent electric charge $`(ze)_{eq}=g_D\beta `$; the energy losses of fast monopoles are thus very large.

\- Energy losses of slow monopoles ($`10^4<\beta <10^2`$). For slow particles it is important to distinguish the energy lost in ionization or excitation of atoms and molecules of the medium (“electronic” energy loss) from that lost to yield kinetic energy to recoiling atoms or nuclei (“atomic” or “nuclear” energy loss). Electronic energy loss predominates for electrically or magnetically charged particles with $`\beta >10^3`$. The dE/dx of MMs with $`10^4<\beta <10^3`$ is mainly due to excitations of atoms. In an ionization detector using noble gases there would be, for $`10^4<\beta <10^3`$, an additional energy loss due to atomic energy level mixing (Drell effect, see Section 3).

\- Energy losses at very low velocities. MMs with $`v<10^4c`$ cannot excite atoms; they can only lose energy in elastic collisions with atoms or with nuclei. The energy is released to the medium in the form of elastic vibrations and/or infra–red radiation .

Fig. 1 shows a sketch of the energy losses in liquid hydrogen of a $`g=g_D`$ MM vs its $`\beta `$ .

\- Energy losses in superconductors. If a pole passes through a superconducting ring, there will be a magnetic flux change of $`\varphi _B=2\pi \mathrm{}c/e`$, yielding $`dE/dx42`$ MeV/cm, $`\beta `$independent (see Section 3).

\- Energy losses of MMs in celestial bodies. For $`\beta `$ $`<10^4`$ the main energy losses in the Earth are due to : i) pole–atom elastic scattering, ii) eddy current losses, iii) nuclear stopping power. Poles may be stopped by celestial bodies if they have
Moon: $`\beta 5\times 10^5`$, Earth: $`\beta 10^4`$, Jupiter: $`\beta 3\times 10^4`$, Sun: $`\beta 10^3.`$

## 3 Monopole detectors

Monopole detectors are based on the properties of MMs determined from Dirac’s relation.

\- Superconducting induction devices. This method of detection is based only on the long–range electromagnetic interaction between the magnetic charge and the macroscopic quantum state of a superconducting ring. A moving MM induces in the ring an electromotive force and a current ($`\mathrm{\Delta }i`$). For a coil with N turns and inductance L, $`\mathrm{\Delta }i=4\pi Nng_D/L=2\mathrm{\Delta }i_o`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }i_o`$ is the current change corresponding to a change of one unit of the flux quantum of superconductivity. A superconducting induction detector, consisting of a detection coil coupled to a SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interferometer Device), should be sensitive to MMs of any velocity .

\- Scintillation counters. Many searches have been performed using excitation loss techniques. The light yield from a MM traversing a scintillator has a threshold at $`\beta 10^4`$, above which the light signal is large compared to that of a minimum ionizing particle. For $`10^3<\beta <10^1`$ there is a saturation effect. For $`\beta >0.1`$ the light yield increases because of the production of many delta rays .

\- Gaseous detectors. Gaseous detectors of various types have been used. MACRO used limited streamer tubes equipped with readouts for the wires and pickup strips, for two–dimensional localization . The gas was 73% helium and 27% n–pentane. This allows exploitation of the Drell  and Penning effects: a magnetic monopole leaves the helium atoms in a metastable excited state (He\*) with an excited energy of $`20`$ eV. The ionization potential of n–pentane is about 10 eV; the Penning effect converts the excited energy of the He\* into ionization of the n–pentane molecule .

\- Nuclear track detectors. Nuclear track detectors (NTD) can record the passage of heavily ionizing particles like magnetic monopoles . The formation of an etchable track in a nuclear track detector is related to the Restricted Energy Loss (REL), which is the fraction of the total energy loss which remains localized in a cylindrical region with about 10 nm diameter around the particle trajectory. Both the electronic and the nuclear energy losses contribute to REL. In Ref.  it was shown that both are effective in producing etchable tracks in the CR39 nuclear track detector. The CR39 has a threshold at $`z/\beta 5`$; it is the most sensitive NTD and it allows to search for magnetic monopoles with one unit Dirac charge (g=$`g_D`$) for $`\beta `$ around $`10^4`$ and for $`\beta >10^3`$, the whole $`\beta `$-range of $`4\times 10^5<\beta <1`$ for MMs with $`g2g_D`$ . The Lexan and Makrofol polycarbonates have a threshold at $`z/\beta 50`$; thus they are sensitive only to relativistic MMs.

## 4 Searches for “classical Dirac monopoles”

We shall consider “classical” Dirac monopoles those MMs which have relatively low masses and could possibly be produced at accelerators.

\- Accelerator searches. If MMs could be produced at high–energy accelerators, they would be relativistic and would ionize heavily. They would thus be easily discriminated from minimum ionizing particles. Examples of direct searches are scintillation counter searches and the experiments performed with nuclear track detectors for which data taking is integrated over periods of months. Experiments at the Fermilab $`\overline{p}p`$ collider established cross section upper limits of $`2\times 10^{34}`$ cm2 for MMs with masses up to 850 GeV . Searches at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders excluded masses up to 45 GeV  and later also the 45-102 GeV mass range (the cross section upper limits are at $`\sigma 5\times 10^{37}`$ cm2) , Fig. 2. Recently several large purpose detectors at high energy colliders have used some of their subdetectors (mainly the tracking subdetectors) to search for classical Dirac monopoles.

Fig. 3 summarizes the direct limits as a function of the monopole magnetic charge $`g=ng_D/q`$ (the value of 1 corresponds to the electric charge of the electron and $`n=1`$); if the basic electric charge is that of a quark with $`q=1/3`$, then the magnetic charge would be 3 times larger.

An example of an indirect search is an experiment at the CERN SPS: the 450 GeV protons interacted in targets made of ferromagnetic tungsten powder. Later on the targets were placed in front of a pulsed solenoid with a field $`B200`$ kG, large enough to extract and accelerate the MMs, to be detected in nuclear emulsions and in CR39 sheets . A more recent indirect experiment was performed at the $`\overline{p}p`$ Tevatron collider at Fermilab, assuming that the produced MMs could stop, be trapped and bound in matter surrounding the D0 collision region . Beryllium and Aluminium samples of the materials having dimensions of $``$ 7.5 cm diameter and 7.5 cm long, were repeatedly passed through the 10 cm diameter warm bore centered on and perpendicular to two superconducting coils. The induced charge (current) in the superconducting coil could be measured by DC SQUIDs. Monopole mass limits $`m>285`$ GeV were established for $`g=g_D`$ poles. It is difficult to establish the validity of several hypotheses which have to be used in order to interpret these negative results.

\- Multi–$`\gamma `$ events. Five peculiar photon shower events, found in nuclear plates exposed to high–altitude cosmic rays, were characterized by an energetic narrow cone of tens of photons, without any incident charged particle . The total energy in the photons was of the order of $`10^{11}`$ GeV. The small radial spread of photons suggested a c.m. $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}>10^3`$. The energies of the photons in the overall c.m. system were small, too low to have $`\pi ^o`$ decays as their source. One possible explanation of these events could be the following: a high–energy $`\gamma `$–ray, with energy $`>10^{12}`$ eV, produced in the plate a pole–antipole pair, which then suffered bremsstrahlung and annihilation producing the final multi–$`\gamma `$ events.

Searches for multi-$`\gamma `$ events were performed in $`pp`$ collisions at the ISR at $`\sqrt{s}=53`$ GeV , in $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions at the 1.8 TeV collider at Fermilab and in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at LEP. The ISR experiment placed a cross–section upper–limit of $`10^{37}`$ cm2. At Fermilab the D0 experiment searched for pairs of photons with high transverse energies; virtual heavy pointlike Dirac MMs could rescatter pairs of nearly real photons into the final state via a box monopole diagram as shown in Fig. 4. They set a 95% C.L. lower limit of 870 GeV for spin 1/2 Dirac monopoles . At LEP the L3 collaboration searched for anomalous $`Z\gamma \gamma \gamma `$ events; they observed no significant deviation from QED predictions, setting a 95% C.L. lower mass limit of 510 GeV . Many authors studied the effects from virtual monopole loops . The authors of Ref.  criticized the underlying theory and believe that no significant limit can be obtained from present experiments based on virtual monopole processes.

\- Searches in bulk matter. Classical MMs could be produced by cosmic rays and could stop at the surface of the Earth, where they could be trapped in ferromagnetic materials. A search for MMs in bulk matter used a total of 331 kg of material, including meteorites, schists, ferromanganese nodules, iron ore and other materials. The detector was a superconducting induction coil with a SQUID. The material was passed at constant velocity through the magnet bore. The passage of a MM trapped in a sample would cause a jump in the current in the superconducting coil. From the absence of candidates the authors conclude that the monopole/nucleon ratio in the samples was $`<1.2\times 10^{29}`$ at 90% C.L. .

The searches for classical MMs performed at accelerators are not relevant to the question of the existence of very massive poles. Ruzicka and Zrelov summarized all searches for classical monopoles performed before 1980 . A more recent bibliography, until the end of 1999, is given in Ref. . Possible effects arising from low mass MMs have been reported .

## 5 Supermassive GUT monopoles

As already stated, GUT theories of the electroweak and strong interations predict the existence of superheavy magnetic monopoles produced in the Early Universe (EU) as topological point defects when a GUT gauge group breaks into separate groups, one of which is U(1). Assuming that the GUT group is SU(5) (in reality it is excluded by proton decay experiments) one should have the following transitions in the EU:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& 10^{15}GeV& & 10^2GeV& \\ SU(5)& & SU(3)_C\times \left[SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\right]& & SU(3)_C\times U(1)_{EM}\\ & 10^{35}s& & 10^9s& \end{array}$$
(2)
MMs would be generated as topological point defects in the GUT phase transition, about one monopole for each causal domain. In the standard cosmology this leads to too many monopoles: the present monopole density would be $`\rho _M5\times 10^{18}`$ g/cm3, while the critical density is $`\rho _c8\times 10^{29}`$ g/cm3 (the monopole problem!). Inflation would defer the GUT phase transition, after extreme supercooling; in its simplest version the number of generated MMs would be very small. However the flux depends critically on several parameters, like $`m_M`$, the reheating temperature, etc. If the reheating temperature is large enough one would have MMs produced in high energy collisions, like $`e^+e^{}M\overline{M}`$.

Fig. 5 shows the possible structure of a GUT magnetic monopole, with a very small core, an electroweak region, a confinement region, a fermion–antifermion condensate region (which may contain 4–fermion baryon–number–violating terms); for $`r3`$ fm a MM behaves as a point particle which generates a field $`B=g/r^2`$ .

A flux of cosmic GUT supermassive magnetic monopoles may reach the Earth and may have done so for the whole life of the Earth. The velocity spectrum of these MMs could be in the range $`4\times 10^5<\beta <0.1`$, with possible peaks corresponding to the escape velocities from the Earth, the Sun and the Galaxy. Searches for such MMs in the cosmic radiation have been performed with superconducting induction devices, whose combined limit is at the level of $`2\times 10^{14}`$cm-2 s-1 sr-1, independent of $`\beta `$ . Several direct searches were performed above ground and underground \[18, 28-31\]. The most complete search was performed by the MACRO detector, using three different types of subdetectors (liquid scintillators, limited streamer tubes and nuclear track detectors) and with an acceptance of about 10,000 m2sr for an isotropic flux. No monopoles have been detected; the 90% C.L. flux limits are shown in Fig. 6 vs $`\beta `$ for $`g=g_D`$ MMs : the limits are at the level of $`1.4\times 10^{16}`$ cm-2 s-1 sr-1 for $`\beta >4\times 10^5`$. The figure shows also the limits from the Ohya , Baksan, Baikal, and AMANDA experiments . Previous limits are at levels larger than 10-15 cm-2 s-1 sr-1 .

Fig. 7 shows the 90% C.L. flux upper limits obtained with the MACRO CR39 nuclear track detector for MMs with different magnetic charges, $`g=g_D`$, $`2g_D`$, $`3g_D`$ and for M + p composites .

The interaction of the GUT monopole core with a nucleon can lead to a reaction in which the nucleon decays (monopole catalysis of nucleon decay), f. e. $`M+pM+e^++\pi ^0`$. The cross section for this process is of the order of magnitude of the core size, $`\sigma 10^{56}`$ cm2, practically negligible. But the catalysis process could proceed via the Rubakov-Callan mechanism with a cross section of the order of the strong interaction cross section . MACRO developed a dedicated analysis procedure aiming to detect nucleon decays induced by the passage of a GUT monopole in their streamer tube system. The flux upper limit results of this search as a function of the MM velocity and of the catalysis cross section are shown in Fig. 8 . Previous limits are at levels larger than $`10^{15}`$ cm-2 s-1 sr-1 , with the exception of the Baikal limit which is $`6\times 10^{17}`$ cm-2 s-1 sr-1 for $`\beta 10^5`$ .

Some indirect searches used ancient mica, which has a high z threshold. The mica experiment scenario assumes that a bare monopole passing through the Earth captures an aluminium nucleus and drags it through subterranean mica causing a trail of lattice defects. As long as the mica is not reheated, the damage trail will survive. The mica pieces analyzed are small ($`13.5`$ and $`18`$ cm2), but should have been recording tracks since they cooled, about $`4÷9\times 10^8`$ years ago. The flux upper–limits are at the level of $`10^{17}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$sr-1 for $`10^4<\beta <10^3`$ . There are many reasons why these indirect experiments might not be sensitive. For example, if MMs have a positive electric charge or have protons attached, then Coulomb repulsion could prevent capture of heavy nuclei.

## 6 Cosmological and astrophysical bounds

Rough, order of magnitude upper limits for a GUT monopole flux in the cosmic radiation were obtained on the basis of cosmological and astrophysical considerations. Here we shall quote only some of these limits.

\- Limit from the mass density of the universe. This bound is obtained requiring that the present MM mass density be smaller than the critical density $`\rho _c`$ of the universe. For $`m_M10^{17}`$ GeV one has the limit: $`F=\frac{n_Mc}{4\pi }\beta <3\times 10^{12}h_0^2\beta (\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1\text{sr}^1).`$ It is valid for poles uniformly distributed in the universe. If poles are clustered in galaxies the limit could be much larger.

\- Limit from the galactic magnetic field. The Parker limit. The $`3\mu `$G magnetic field in our Galaxy is stretched in the direction of the spiral arms; it is probably due to the non–uniform rotation of the Galaxy. This mechanism generates a field with a time–scale approximately equal to the rotation period of the Galaxy $`(\tau 10^8`$ yr). Since MMs are accelerated in magnetic fields, they gain energy, which is taken away from the stored magnetic energy. An upper bound for the MM flux is obtained by requiring that the kinetic energy gained per unit time by MMs be less than or equal to the magnetic energy generated by the dynamo effect. This yields the so–called Parker limit: $`F<10^{15}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ sr-1 . The original limit was re–examined to take into account the almost chaotic nature of the galactic magnetic field, with domain lengths of about $`\mathrm{}1`$ kpc; the limit becomes mass dependent . More recently an extended Parker bound was obtained by considering the survival of an early seed field . The result was $`F1.2\times 10^{16}(m_M/10^{17}GeV)\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1\text{sr}^1.`$

\- Limit from the intergalactic magnetic field. Assuming the existence in the local group of galaxies of an intergalactic field $`B_{IG}3\times 10^8G`$ with a regeneration time $`\tau _{IG}10^9y`$ and applying the same reasoning discussed above, a more stringent bound is obtained; the limit is less reliable because the intergalactic field is less known.

\- Limits from peculiar A4 stars and from pulsars. Peculiar A4 stars have their magnetic fields $`(B10^3G)`$ in the direction opposite to that expected from their rotation. A MM with $`\beta 10^3`$ would stop in A4 stars; thus the number of MMs in the star would increase with time (neglecting $`M\overline{M}`$ annihilations inside the star). The poles could be accelerated in the magnetic field, which would therefore decrease with increasing time. Repeating the Parker argument, one may obtain strong limits, but it is not clear how good are all the assumptions made. With similar considerations applied to the superconducting core of neutron stars, the field survival of a pulsar gives an upper limit of the monopole flux in the neighbourhood of the pulsar. The limit would be particulary stringent for pulsar PSR 1937+214 .

## 7 Intermediate mass magnetic monopoles

IMMs would appear as topological point defects at a later time in the Early Universe; in this case the GUT group would not yield a U(1) group at the end of the GUT phase transition, it would appear a later new phase transition, as for instance in the following sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& 10^{15}GeV& & 10^9GeV& \\ SO(10)& & SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)& & SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)\\ & 10^{35}s& & 10^{23}s& \end{array}$$
(3)
which would lead to MMs with masses of the order of $`10^{10}`$ GeV; these monopoles survive inflation, are stable, “doubly charged” (n=2 in Eq.1) and do not catalyze nucleon decay . The structure of an IMM would be similar to that of a GUT monopole, but the core would be much larger (since R $``$ 1/$`m_M`$) and the outer cloud would not contain 4–fermion baryon–number–violating terms.

Relativistic magnetic monopoles with intermediate masses, $`10^5<m_M<10^{12}`$ GeV, could be present in the cosmic radiation. IMMs could be accelerated to large values of $`\gamma `$ in one coherent domain of the galactic magnetic field. Thus one would have to look for $`\beta 0.1`$ fast, heavily ionizing MMs.

Detectors underground, underwater and under ice would mainly have a sensitivity for poles coming from above. Detectors at the Earth surface could detect MMs coming from above if they have masses larger than $`10^510^6`$ GeV ; lower mass MMs may be searched for with detectors located at high mountain altitudes, or in balloons and in satellites.

Few experimental results are available . Fig. 9 shows the present situation on flux upper limits for intermediate mass MMs. The Cherenkov neutrino telescopes under ice and underwater are sensitive to fast and very fast ($`\gamma >>1`$) MMs mainly coming from above.

The SLIM experiment is searching for fast IMMs with nuclear track detectors at the Chacaltaya high altitude lab (5230 m above sea level) . It is sensitive to MMs with $`4\times 10^5<\beta <3\times 10^4`$ and $`\beta >2\times 10^3`$ if $`g=g_D`$, the whole range $`4\times 10^5<\beta <1`$ if $`g=2g_D`$. Nuclear track detectors are sensitive to these poles and are also sensitive to slow moving nuclearites (strangelets, strange quark matter).

## 8 Conclusions. Outlook

Direct and indirect accelerator searches for classical Dirac monopoles have placed 95 % C.L. mass limits at the level of $`m_M>850`$ GeV with cross section upper values as shown in Fig. 2. Future improvements could come from experiments at the LHC .
Many searches have been performed for superheavy GUT monopoles in the penetrating cosmic radiation. The 90 % C.L. flux limits are at the level of $`\mathrm{\Phi }1.4\times 10^{16}`$ cm-2 s-1 sr-1 for $`\beta 4\times 10^5`$. It would be difficult to do much better since one would require refined detectors of considerably larger areas. Or one has to devise completely new techniques.
Present limits on Intermediate Mass Monopoles with high $`\beta `$ are relatively poor. Experiments at high altitudes and at neutrino telescopes should improve the situation. In particular stringent limits may be obtained by large neutrino telescopes for IMMs with $`\beta >0.5`$ coming from above.

As a byproduct of GUT MM searches MACRO obtained stringent limits on nuclearites in the CR . Future experiments at neutrino telescopes and at high altitude should perform searches for smaller mass nuclearites.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the cooperation of many colleagues, in particular S. Cecchini, F. Cei, M. Cozzi, I. De Mitri, M. Giorgini, G. Mandrioli, M. Ouchrif, V. Popa, P. Serra, M. Spurio, and others.