text:
# Two-particle interference in standard and Bohmian quantum mechanics

## 1 Introduction

Just about fifty years ago, Bohm proposed a new interpretation of quantum mechanics . Although standard quantum mechanics (SQM) is statistical and nondeterministic, Bohmian quantum mechanics (BQM) is fully causal. In BQM the wave-particle duality is resolved. A quantum object is a particle with well-determined, although not accurately known, position and momentum. The quantum object’s wave characteristics are embodied in a quantum potential that acts on the particle and is related to the wavefunction. In a system of $`n`$ particles with total wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{r}_1\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{n}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{t}\mathbf{)}`$, the velocity of particle $`i`$ is taken to be

$$\dot{\mathrm{r}}_i=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}\text{Im}\left[\frac{\mathbf{}_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{r}_1\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{n}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{t}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{r}_1\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{n}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{t}\mathbf{)}}\right].$$
(1)
In BQM, the probability density of finding particles $`1,\mathrm{},n`$ at points $`\mathrm{r}_1\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{n}`$ is given, as in SQM, by the absolute square of the total wavefunction. The BQM probability is subjective, that is, it expresses our ignorance of the particles’ true positions. The continuity equation satisfied by the probability density implies that the latter is consistent with Bohmian trajectories. This means that if Bohmian particles are distributed according to the absolute square of the wavefunction at time $`t_0`$, then their trajectories will transform their probability distribution precisely as SQM predicts. The probability of finding a given particle at a given position is the same in both interpretations. Thus, statistical predictions of SQM and BQM should be indistinguishable.

Nevertheless, Ghose  as well as Golshani and Akhavan  recently proposed experimental setups that allegedly lead to different predictions for SQM and BQM. An experiment along these lines has been carried out by Brida et al, and the results were interpreted as confirming SQM and contradicting BQM. All proposed experiments are based on two-particle interference, and make use of symmetrical arrangements of either two or four slits. The disagreement between SQM and BQM is seen in the fact that SQM statistically allows some pairs of particles to reach detectors asymmetrically, while Bohmian trajectories are claimed to forbid this. These conclusions have been disputed by Struyve et al and by one of us . The objection is that references  make use of unwarranted hypotheses on the initial distribution of the particles’ positions.

In this paper we first examine the double-slit and two-double-slit setups proposed by Golshani and Akhavan, showing that in all important aspects the latter in fact reduces to the former. Next we obtain the equations of motion exactly and point out general properties of the velocities. We then compute Bohmian trajectories numerically. The trajectories are used to show explicitly how the agreement between SQM and BQM comes about.

## 2 Experimental setups

### 2.1 Double-slit setup

Two-particle interference differs from one-particle interference in that the interference pattern does not show up in the individual detection of a particle on a screen but in the joint detection of a pair of particles. That is, the interference pattern is a property of configuration space.

The double-slit setup proposed in  is shown in figure 1. A pair of identical particles emitted by a source S impinges on a double-slit interferometer. Just behind the slits the wavefunction is assumed to be well described by plane waves with zero total momentum in the $`y`$-direction and identical momenta in the $`x`$-direction. Thus each particle goes through a different slit. Since both particles are identical, the total wavefunction is symmetrical (bosons) or antisymmetrical (fermions) under particle permutation. The edges of the slits are assumed smooth enough to avoid treating diffraction of wave packets as these go through the apertures \[2, p. 177\]. Each slit is taken to generate a Gaussian wave form in the $`y`$-direction, while leaving the wave form unaffected in the $`x`$-direction. Explicitly, let particle $`i`$ emerge form slit A at $`t=0`$. Its wavefunction is then written as

$$\psi _\mathrm{A}(x_i,y_i,t=0)=\left(2\pi \sigma _0^2\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(y_iY)^2}{4\sigma _0^2}+\mathrm{}[k_xx_i+k_y(y_iY)]\right\}.$$
(2)
We should point out that once we settle on equation (2) as the one-particle wavefunction, no information on the particle’s state prior to $`t=0`$ is relevant that is not contained in (2). On the other hand, assuming free propagation with time we get for $`t>0`$

$`\psi _\mathrm{A}(x_i,y_i,t)=\left(2\pi \sigma _t^2\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{(y_iY\mathrm{}k_yt/m)^2/(4\sigma _0\sigma _t)\right\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{}\left[k_xx_i+k_y(y_iY\mathrm{}k_yt/(2m))\mathrm{}k_x^2t/(2m)\right]\right\},`$ (3)
where

$$\sigma _t=\sigma _0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}\right).$$
(4)
The two-particle total wavefunction is taken as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=N\left[\psi _\mathrm{A}(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}(x_2,y_2,t)\pm \psi _\mathrm{A}(x_2,y_2,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}(x_1,y_1,t)\right],$$
(5)
where $`N`$ is a normalization constant and

$$\psi _\mathrm{B}(x,y,t)=\psi _\mathrm{A}(x,y,t).$$
(6)
In (5) the plus sign refers to bosons and the minus sign to fermions. Note that the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is symmetric (or antisymmetric) with respect to a reflection in the $`y=0`$ plane.

### 2.2 Two-double-slit setup

A two-double-slit setup was proposed in  and is shown in figure 2. A pair of correlated particles leaves source S in a state of zero total momentum. The particles therefore either go through slits A and B or through slits B and A. Accordingly, up to a multiplicative factor the total wavefunction was taken in  as111This wavefunction is symmetric with respect to a reflection in the $`y=0`$ plane, for both bosons and fermions. As with (5), we could easily make it symmetric for bosons and antisymmetric for fermions, by permuting the sign factors of the third and fourth terms. The following argument would then be carried out just as easily, except that the final correspondence between equations (11) and (12) and equation (5) would involve in the latter both the plus and minus signs.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _\mathrm{A}(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}^{}(x_2,y_2,t)\pm \psi _\mathrm{A}(x_2,y_2,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}^{}(x_1,y_1,t)`$
$`+\psi _\mathrm{A}^{}(x_2,y_2,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}(x_1,y_1,t)\pm \psi _\mathrm{A}^{}(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}(x_2,y_2,t),`$ (7)
with

$`\psi _\mathrm{A}^{}(x,y,t)=\psi _\mathrm{A}(x,y,t),`$ (8)
$`\psi _\mathrm{B}^{}(x,y,t)=\psi _\mathrm{B}(x,y,t)=\psi _\mathrm{A}(x,y,t).`$ (9)
It is not difficult to check that if the plus sign is picked in (7), the global wavefunction can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{cos}[k_x(x_1x_2)]\mathrm{\Phi }(y_1,y_2,t).$$
(10)
If the minus sign is picked instead, the cosine is simply replaced by a sine. Hence the $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$ dependence factors out and it is given by a real function. From equation (1), we immediately conclude that $`\dot{x}_1=0=\dot{x}_2`$. That is, the Bohmian particles do not move in the $`x`$-direction.

The reason for this is that with the one-particle wavefunctions written as in (3), (6), (8) and (9), equation (7) does not adequately represent the interference situation depicted in figure 2. Indeed all one-particle wavefunctions are infinitely extended in both the positive and negative $`x`$-directions. Clearly, however, equations (3) and (6) for $`\psi _\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{B}`$ are intended to hold only where $`x>d`$, while (8) and (9) for $`\psi _\mathrm{A}^{}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{B}^{}`$ hold only where $`x<d`$. The total wavefunction should therefore be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=N^{}[\psi _\mathrm{A}(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}^{}(x_2,y_2,t)+\psi _\mathrm{A}^{}(x_2,y_2,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}(x_1,y_1,t)]$$
(11)
if $`x_1>d`$ and $`x_2<d`$, and as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\pm N^{}[\psi _\mathrm{A}(x_2,y_2,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}^{}(x_1,y_1,t)+\psi _\mathrm{A}^{}(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _\mathrm{B}(x_2,y_2,t)]$$
(12)
if $`x_1<d`$ and $`x_2>d`$. The two expressions of the total wavefunction do not overlap in configuration space, whence Bohmian trajectories associated with one are completely independent of the other. As it should, (11) and (12) transform into each other (with a plus sign for bosons and a minus sign for fermions) under particle permutation.

It is easy to check that, up to a constant multiplicative factor, equation (11) can be obtained from (5) (with the plus sign) through the substitution $`x_2x_2`$. From (1) we see at once that all components of velocities are the same with both wavefunctions, except that $`\dot{x}_2`$ is transformed into $`\dot{x}_2`$. We conclude that Bohmian trajectories in the two situations are in one-to-one correspondence, with $`x_2`$ being reflected in the $`yz`$-plane.

Exactly the same argument shows that Bohmian trajectories computed with (12) and (5) are also in one-to-one correspondence, with $`x_1`$ now being reflected in the $`yz`$-plane.

## 3 SQM and BQM predictions

In the remainder of this paper we shall discuss the double-slit setup only, since results pertaining to the two-double-slit setup can be obtained by straightforward transformation.

Let one pair of particles leave the slits at $`t=0`$ and arrive at detectors at time $`t`$ (both particles have $`x`$-momentum equal to $`\mathrm{}k_x`$). In SQM, the probability of finding the particles on detectors at points $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ is given by:

$$P(y_1,y_2,t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(y_1,y_2,t)|^2.$$
(13)
Suppose first that $`t`$ is such that $`|\sigma _t|\sigma _0`$. Then the spreading of the wave packets is not very important. Therefore, the probability of finding both particles on the same side of the $`x`$-axis is very low. The particles will be detected on both sides of the $`x`$-axis, rather symmetrically if $`\sigma _0`$ is much smaller than $`Y`$ (see figure 1). Moreover, as one-particle wavefunctions overlap very little, interference effects will be negligible.

Assume now that $`|\sigma _t|\sigma _0`$. This can be obtained either by taking detectors further to the right, or by reducing the value of $`k_x`$. Then wavefunction overlap becomes important and interference effects begin to show up. Detection becomes more and more asymmetrical, and both members of a pair can even be detected on the same side of the $`x`$-axis.

In BQM, particle velocities can be computed from equation (1) and wavefunction (5). The calculation somewhat simplifies if $`k_y=0`$, which we henceforth assume. Substituting (3) and (6) into (5) and discarding multiplicative factors that do not depend on $`\mathrm{r}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{r}_2`$, we find that

$`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{}\left[k_x(x_1+x_2)\right]\right\}\{\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{y_1^2+y_2^2+2Y(y_2y_1)}{4\sigma _0\sigma _t}}]`$ (14)
$`\pm \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{y_1^2+y_2^22Y(y_2y_1)}{4\sigma _0\sigma _t}}]\}.`$ (15)
Making use of (1) we immediately see that

$$\dot{x}_1=\frac{\mathrm{}k_x}{m}=\dot{x}_2.$$
(16)
The $`y`$-components are trickier. Discarding now the $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ dependence of the wave function and making use of (4), we can write

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(f)\left\{\mathrm{exp}(g)\pm \mathrm{exp}(g)\right\},$$
(17)
where

$`f=\left\{4\sigma _0^2\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}}\right)^2\right]\right\}^1\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}}\right]\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right),`$ (18)
$`g=\left\{4\sigma _0^2\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}}\right)^2\right]\right\}^1\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}}\right]2Y(y_2y_1).`$ (19)
From (1) we get

$$\dot{y}_1=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}\text{Im}\left\{\frac{f}{y_1}+\left(\frac{g}{y_1}\right)\frac{\mathrm{exp}(g)\pm \mathrm{exp}(g)}{\mathrm{exp}(g)\pm \mathrm{exp}(g)}\right\}.$$
(20)
Straightforward manipulations and use of trigonometric identities finally yield

$$\dot{y}_1=\frac{2\mathrm{}Ym\sigma _0^2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{}t\alpha )\pm Y\mathrm{}^2t\mathrm{sinh}(2m\sigma _0^2\alpha )}{\left(\mathrm{}^2t^2+4m^2\sigma _0^4\right)[\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}t\alpha )\pm \mathrm{cosh}(2m\sigma _0^2\alpha )]}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2ty_1}{\mathrm{}^2t^2+4m^2\sigma _0^4},$$
(21)
where the upper sign is for bosons, the lower sign for fermions and

$$\alpha =\frac{2Ym\left(y_1y_2\right)}{\mathrm{}^2t^2+4m^2\sigma _0^4}.$$
(22)
Similarly,

$$\dot{y}_2=\frac{2\mathrm{}Ym\sigma _0^2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{}t\alpha )\pm Y\mathrm{}^2t\mathrm{sinh}(2m\sigma _0^2\alpha )}{\left(\mathrm{}^2t^2+4m^2\sigma _0^4\right)[\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}t\alpha )\pm \mathrm{cosh}(2m\sigma _0^2\alpha )]}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2ty_2}{\mathrm{}^2t^2+4m^2\sigma _0^4}.$$
(23)
When $`t`$ is large enough, $`\dot{y}_1`$ and $`\dot{y}_2`$ are dominated by the last term in (21) and (23). The behaviour of fermions and bosons therefore coincide.

It is easy to check that velocity components satisfy the following relations:

$`\dot{y}_i(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2,;t)=\dot{y}_i(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)(i=1,2),`$ (24)
$`\dot{y}_1(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2,;t)=\dot{y}_2(x_1,y_2;x_2,y_1;t).`$ (25)
Furthermore, the $`y`$-component of the centre-of-mass coordinate satisfies

$$\dot{y}(t)\frac{\dot{y}_1(t)+\dot{y}_2(t)}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2ty}{\mathrm{}^2t^2+4m^2\sigma _0^4}.$$
(26)
This is readily integrated as

$$y(t)=y(0)\left\{1+\left(\frac{\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}\right)^2\right\}^{1/2}=y(0)\frac{|\sigma _t|}{\sigma _0}.$$
(27)
If two particles emerge from the slits at heights symmetrical with respect to the $`x`$-axis, then $`y(0)=0`$. Equation (27) implies that $`y(t)=0`$ for all $`t`$, and the particles will necessarily be detected symmetrically. Likewise if $`y(0)`$ is very small, specifically, much smaller than $`\sigma _0`$, $`y(t)`$ should remain small enough so that the two particles will be detected almost symmetrically.

From such observations, Ghose  and Golshani and Akhavan  argued that BQM could make experimental predictions beyond what SQM allows. One would only have to prepare a number of pairs each with $`|y(0)|\sigma _0`$, and detect them at time $`t`$. We have seen that, if $`|\sigma _t|\sigma _0`$, SQM predicts highly asymmetrical detection. Yet with $`y(0)`$ small enough, BQM would predict highly symmetrical detection.

The flaw in the argument was pointed out in , where it was shown that such a selection of $`y(0)`$ values is incompatible with Bohm’s assumptions. It is instructive to make the argument fully quantitative. In Bohm’s theory, the probability distribution of particle positions is given by the absolute square of the wavefunction. Making use of (5), (2) and (6), we see that at $`t=0`$ the distribution of $`y`$-coordinates is given by ($`k_y=0`$)

$$P(y_1,y_2,0)=|N|^2(2\pi \sigma _0^2)^1\left\{F+G\pm 2H\right\},$$
(28)
where

$`F=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(y_1Y)^2+(y_2+Y)^2}{2\sigma _0^2}}\right\},`$ (29)
$`G=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(y_2Y)^2+(y_1+Y)^2}{2\sigma _0^2}}\right\},`$ (30)
$`H=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{y_1^2+y_2^2+2Y^2}{2\sigma _0^2}}\right\}.`$ (31)
Straightforward integration shows that the probability is normalized to one if

$$|N|^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\pm \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Y^2}{\sigma _0^2}\right)\right\}^1.$$
(32)
It is easy to check that $`y_1+y_2=0`$. The standard deviation of $`y(0)`$ then follows from an evaluation of $`(y_1+y_2)^2`$. All integrations are elementary, and we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }y(0)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(y_1+y_2)^2}=\frac{\sigma _0}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(33)
Hence it is not possible, in Bohm’s theory, to select initial positions so that $`|y(0)|\sigma _0`$. Any such selection scheme amounts either to pick a different initial wavefunction, or to make assumptions on the distribution of true particle positions different from Bohm’s original ones.

## 4 Trajectories

To investigate Bohmian trajectories of pairs of particles governed by wavefunction (5), we have computed them numerically. A fourth- and fifth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm was implemented to solve differential equations (21) and (23), both in Mathematica and through a special purpose program we wrote in C. Results displayed all use $`m`$ equal to the mass of the electron, $`\sigma _0=10^6\text{m}`$, $`Y=5\sigma _0`$ and $`k_y=0`$. The distance between slits and detectors is set at $`0.2\text{m}`$. From (16) we see that the time needed for a particle to reach the detector is inversely proportional to $`k_x`$.

Figure 3 shows a number of pair trajectories for two different values of $`k_x`$, with the result that $`|\sigma _t|=1.16\sigma _0`$ in (a) and $`|\sigma _t|=5.88\sigma _0`$ in (b). For each pair, $`y`$-coordinates were picked randomly according to Gaussian distributions with standard deviation $`\sigma _0`$, one centred about $`Y`$ and the other centred about $`Y`$. In (a) the Bohmian trajectories are almost horizontal straight lines, which bears out the fact that wave packets have spread very little. In (b), on the other hand, Bohmian trajectories spread and a number of pairs display considerable interference. Some particles coming out of the upper slit end up below the $`x`$-axis, and some coming out of the lower slit end up above.

Figure 4 shows a much smaller number of pairs, this time labelled independently. In (a) the initial $`y`$-coordinates of both particles are picked symmetrically, that is, $`y(0)=0`$. Trajectories remain symmetrical, as equation (27) predicts. In (b), on the other hand, the initial $`y`$-coordinates of the upper particles are set at $`y=Y`$, while the $`y`$-coordinates of the lower particles are picked as $`y=Y+1.5\sigma _0`$ (solid line), $`y=Y`$ (dotted line) and $`y=Y1.5\sigma _0`$ (dotted-dashed line), respectively. The particle leaving from $`y=Y+1.5\sigma _0`$ clearly ends up above the $`x`$-axis, and it gets arbitrarily far from the axis if allowed to go on.

To sum up, the statistical distribution of Bohmian trajectories is fully consistent with the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, pairs of Bohmian particles can be detected on the same side of the setup’s symmetry plane, and arbitrarily far from the plane.

In the experiment reported in reference , pairs of photons generated by parametric down-conversion were allowed to go through a double-slit setup of the type shown in figure 1. A number of pairs were detected on the same side of the symmetry plane. On the basis of symmetric photon trajectories obtained in , and following the analysis of electronlike trajectories carried out in , this result was interpreted as confirming SQM against BQM.

It is clear that our analysis leads to a different picture. We have shown that nothing prevents Bohmian particles from being detected on the same side of the symmetry plane. Hence, under the assumption that electronlike trajectories are in that respect relevant to photons, the results of  should be interpreted as confirming both SQM and BQM.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, double-slit and two-double-slit setups for two-particle interference were analyzed and shown to be essentially equivalent. Bohmian equations of motion for pairs of bosons or fermions were then obtained and numerically integrated. The statistical distribution of Bohmian trajectories turns out to reproduce standard quantum-mechanical results. Members of a given pair are not restricted to remain on different sides of a symmetry plane. Relevant experimental results are therefore consistent with both SQM and BQM.

## References

We thank P Ghose and M Genovese for comments. One of us (EG) is grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for the award of a postgraduate scholarship.


format: text

text:
# Radiation-hydrodynamic Models of the Accretion Spots in Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables

## 1. Introduction

Observational evidence indicates that the near-polar accretion regions on the white dwarfs at least in some magnetic CVs (mCVs) are highly structured, displaying rapid fluctuations of the mass flux both in the spatial coordiates and in time. Since information of their structure is lacking, a look at well-studied cases of magnetic accretion in the solar system may be inspiring: (i) Jupiter’s auroral oval displays substantial structure in its UV emission as observed with the Hubble Space Telescope, and (ii) the Earth’s aurora shows narrow striations which extend along field lines and indicate different densities in adjacent flux tubes. Although the physics is different, similar structures may exist in mCVs.

Present models of mCV accretion spots are not sufficiently sophisticated to account for such structure. They assume a spatially constant mass flux across the column and are respresentative rather of an individual subcolumn than of the accretion region as a whole. The radiative interaction between individual subcolumns represents a complication which is usually avoided. This neglect may be justified in the optically thin case, but represents a severe restriction if the column is optically thick. In this review, I will summarize the efforts made so far in understanding the properties of accretion columns with special emphasis on the solution of the coupled hydrodynamic and radiative transfer equations.

## 2. The Accretion Scenario

Figure 1a schematically shows the pole cap of the magnetic accreting white dwarf in a polar. The accretion column is fed by a mass flux $`\dot{m}=\rho _\mathrm{o}v_\mathrm{o}`$ (cgs unit g cm-2s-1) with $`\rho _\mathrm{o}`$ the density and $`v_\mathrm{o}`$ the value of the frre-fall velocity $`v_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ at the shock front. The size of the accretion spot depends on the coupling processes in the L1-point and in the magnetosphere of the white dwarf, while the stand-off distance of the shock front, $`h\frac{1}{4}v_\mathrm{o}t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ with $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ the cooling time scale, depends on the emission process, i.e. on $`\rho _\mathrm{o}`$, the electron temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}`$, and the magnetic field strength $`B`$. Depending on the parameters, the emission region in mCVs is either tall (as shown in Fig. 1) or pill-box shaped (i.e. smaller than wide) and the dominant emission process is either hard X-ray bremsstrahlung or IR/optical cyclotron emission. Reprocessing in the atmosphere of the white dwarf produces, in addition, soft X-ray emission from the immediate surrounding of the impact region and UV emission from a wider irradiated area.

The fact that some polars are dominated by soft X-ray emission has been discussed in the literature for some 20 years and dubbed the “soft X-ray problem”. In the original model by Lamb & Masters (1979) and King & Lasota (1979), the white dwarf was assumed to intercept $`<50`$% of the emission, i.e. the non-reflected fraction of the downward flux, and re-radiate it as soft X-rays. Kuipers & Pringle (1982) effectively solved the mystery of the intense soft X-ray emission by noting that dense blobs of matter would penetrate the photosphere and the subsequent optically thick radiative transfer would reprocess all emissions into quasi-blackbody soft X-rays (see alo Frank et al. 1988).

As an example, Figure 1b displays the overall spectral energy distribution of the prototype polar AM Herculis at an orbital phase at which near-maximum cyclotron and X-ray emission is seen. The spectral energy distribution nicely displays the expected components: (i) cyclotron emission at infrared and optical wavelengths; (ii) the heated polar cap of the irradiated white dwarf in the UV longward of the Lyman edge; (iii) an intense soft X-ray component; and (iv) a hard X-ray bremsstrahlung (+ emission line) component. The companion star and the unheated fraction of the white dwarf are comparatively faint light sources. All accretion-induced emissions fluctuate in time. E.g., the soft X-ray flux of AM Herculis in its high state displays statistically relevant variations down to a time scale of $`0.2`$ s, as shown by ROSAT PSPC observations. This time scale corresponds to density fluctuations in the free-falling pre-shock accretion flow on length scales as short as $`10^8`$ cm. An earlier interpretation of the EXOSAT soft X-ray light curve of AM Her (Hameury & King 1988) suggested already that many such intependent subcolumns are present at any time. For simplicity, most models disregard the inhomogeneities in the pre-shock flow in space and time.

For sufficiently high mass flux, a standing shock separates the infalling matter from the shocked plasma which slowly cools and finally settles onto the white dwarf. An analytic solution for the structure of an optically thin postshock flow cooling by bremsstrahlung was given by Aizu (1973). If the flow is optically thick, which is always the case for cyclotron emission in the fundamental, the solution becomes much more complicated because the radiative transfer has to be treated simultaneously with the hydrodynamics (Woelk & Beuermann 1996).

## 3. Bombardment solution

In a hydrodynamic shock, the ions are stopped by Coulomb collisions and the shock thickness equals about one ion mean free path. A special situation arises if cooling is so strong that the randomized energy can be radiated by the electrons within that scale length, i.e., effectively “on the spot”. In this case, an extended post-shock cooling flow does not exist and the concept of a discontinuity separating two regimes of the flow is no longer appropriate. The whole flow has now collapsed to a width which corresponds to the shock thickness and effectively can be described as a hot corona forming part of the white dwarf atmosphere. This mode is referred to as the bombardment solution.

The required efficient cooling for this case can be provided by cyclotron radiation in a strong magnetic field which causes the electron temperature to stay far below the Rankine-Hugoniot temperature $`T_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ of the shock solution. Originally suggested by Kuijpers & Pringle (1982), this case was rigorously solved by Woelk & Beuermann (1992). They treated the ion collisional energy loss by means of statistical plasma physics and simultaneously accounted for the losses of the electrons by a fully frequency-dependent and angle-dependent radiative transfer in a plane-parallel heated atmosphere. The solution predicts a peak electron temperature which increases as k$`T_\mathrm{e}\dot{m}^{0.42}`$ (Woelk & Beuermann 1993, see also Fischer & Beuermann 2001) and equals 1 keV for $`\dot{m}0.01`$ g cm-2s-1, $`B30`$ MG, and a white dwarf mass of 0.6 M$`_{}`$. Such low temperatures are observed in AM Her stars with very low accretion rates (Schwope this conference) and suggest that the predicted temperatures are roughly correct. The solution becomes invalid when $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ approaches the Rankine-Hugoniot temperature with increasing $`\dot{m}`$.

## 4. Radiation-hydrodynamics

For $`\dot{m}>0.1`$ g cm-2s-1, the post-shock plasma flow and the radiative transfer have to be treated simultaneously. The only feasible approach is a fluid description which does not allow to resolve the shock front, however. There is no simple connection between such an approach and the kinetic description of the bombardment solution. Nevertheless, we find that the fluid approach for low $`\dot{m}`$ recovers some important apects of the bombardment case.

### 4.1. The Equations

The general case assumes a two-fluid plasma and allows for different temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{e}}`$ and bulk velocities $`v_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{e}}`$ of ions and electrons. At the high densities in mCV shocks, Coulomb collisions will assure $`\stackrel{}{v}_\mathrm{i}=\stackrel{}{v}_\mathrm{e}\stackrel{}{v}`$, except perhaps within the (unresolved) shock front. A two-fluid treatment may then proceed with a single equation of motion which contains the total pressure, i.e. the sum of ion pressure $`P_\mathrm{i}`$ and electron pressure $`P_\mathrm{e}`$. The skalar pressure and the temperature are related by $`P_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{e}}=n_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{e}}kT_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{e}}`$ (with $`n_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ the particle densities of ions and electrons), which assumes that the particle distributions are isotropic and Maxwellian. Cyclotron losses could, in fact, produce an anisotropic electron distribution function, but the optical depth in the fundamental harmonic is so large that radiative transfer causes the temperatures perpendicular and parallel to the magnetic field to agree closely, except very near the surface of the emission volume (Zhelezniakov 1983). For simplicity, we assume a hydrogen plasma in which $`n_\mathrm{i}=n_\mathrm{e}`$ and the mean molecular weight is $`\mu =1/2`$.

The hydrodynamic equations include the continuity equation, the equation of motion, and the energy equations for ions and electrons, which describe the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy, respectively:

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}+\rho (\stackrel{}{v})=0$$
(1)
$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}+\frac{1}{\rho }(P_\mathrm{i}+P_\mathrm{e})=\stackrel{}{g}+\stackrel{}{f}_{\mathrm{rad}}$$
(2)
$$\frac{dP_\mathrm{i}}{dt}+\gamma \frac{P_\mathrm{i}}{\rho }\frac{d\rho }{dt}=(\gamma 1)\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ei}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}\right)$$
(3)
$$\frac{dP_\mathrm{e}}{dt}+\gamma \frac{P_\mathrm{e}}{\rho }\frac{d\rho }{dt}=(\gamma 1)\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ei}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{rad}})\right].$$
(4)
Here, $`\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}`$, $`\rho =m_\mathrm{u}n_\mathrm{i}`$ is the mass density with $`m_\mathrm{u}`$ the unit mass ($``$ proton mass), and $`\gamma =5/3`$ is the adiabatic index. On the right hand sides, the equation of motion contains the gravity $`\stackrel{}{g}`$ and the volume force exerted by absorbed and scattered radiation, $`\stackrel{}{f}_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. The latter becomes important when the accretion rate approaches the Eddington limit. In the energy equations, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ei}}`$ describes the energy exchange between ions and electrons by Coulomb collisons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}`$ refers to electron heating by any other process, with the energy provided again by the ions. Additional energy gains of the electrons are described by the divergence of the heat conduction flow $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and of the radiative flux $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. Calculation of the radiative flux (Eq. 5) requires solution of the radiative transfer equation (6) for the intensity $`I_\nu (\stackrel{}{n},\nu )`$ as a function of the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ and the frequency $`\nu `$, where $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ are the scattering and absorption coefficients, $`J_\nu `$ is the angle-averaged intensity and the use of $`B_\nu `$ for the source function indicates the assumption of LTE:

$$\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{rad}}=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{4\pi }{}I_\nu \stackrel{}{n}𝑑\omega 𝑑\nu ,$$
(5)
$$\stackrel{}{n}I_\nu =(\sigma +\chi )I_\nu +\chi B_\nu +\sigma J_\nu .$$
(6)
Unsurprisingly, Eqs. (1)–(6) have not been solved in all their beauty, but only after the introduction of some rather severe simplifications.

### 4.2. Simplified Geometry

The correct funnel geometry (see Canalle, this conference) is most complicated so solve, the spherical or the linear geometry represent the simpler cases of which the latter is an acceptable approximation only for shock heights $`h_{\mathrm{sh}}R_{\mathrm{wd}}`$. Realistic columns are always limited in the direction perpendicular to the flow. This limitation is of no concern when the radiative losses can be treated as optically thin emission, but in the optically thick case it requires a multi-dimensional radiative transfer (i.e., with the direction of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ position-dependent). Comparatively simple cases are (i) a shallow infinite layer with the radiative flux vector constantly pointing in the radial direction (Woelk & Beuermann 1996, Fischer & Beuermann 2001) or (ii) a tall column with the radiative flux vector pointing only sideways (Cropper et al. 1999). Naturally, gravity effects increase with column height.

### 4.3. Electron Heating by Non-Coulomb Processes

In Eqs. (3) and (4), the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}`$ represents any heating process other than Coulomb collisions. Non-Coulomb heating of electrons is known to occur in interplanetary shock fronts, in particular, the bow shock of the Earth (e.g. Stone & Tsurutani 1985). In these collisionless shocks (with a typical particle density of $`n10`$ cm-3) characteristic processes are the reflection of ions, charge separation between electrons and ions, and the incidence of various types of plasma instabilities which lead to rapid electron heating. Plasma instabilities may also play a role in heating the electrons in supernova shocks (Lesch 1990). Whether such processes occur in mCV shocks with $`\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{B}`$, high Mach numbers, and high particle densities (exceeding those in interplanetary space by factors of $`10^{11}`$ to $`10^{16}`$) needs to be studied. Some authors (e.g., Saxton & Wu 2001) assume the presence of plasma heating in the shock front and consider $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ immediately behind the shock a free parameter, possibly ranging up to $`T_\mathrm{i}`$. Others, like Woelk & Beuermann 1992, 1996) and Fischer & Beuermann (2001) have disregarded plasma heating and considered Coulomb collisions only ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}=0`$). In their solutions, the ion temperature displays a (quasi-)discontinuity at the shock, while the electron temperature increases only on a length scale which equals the Coulomb time scale times the flow speed. Clearly, the question of plasma heating in the shock front needs further consideration.

### 4.4. One-fluid Plasma

Electron and ion temperatures will be similar if the time scale for energy exchange between ions and electrons by Coulomb collisions is short compared with the cooling time scale. A one-fluid plasma is a reasonable approximation for high $`\dot{m}`$ and low $`B`$, while a two-fluid approach is required for low $`\dot{m}`$ and high $`B`$. The dividing line between the two regimes is approximately located at $`\dot{m}B_7^{2.6}0.1`$, where $`\dot{m}`$ is in g cm-2s-1 and $`B_7`$ is in units of $`10^7`$ G (see Fig. 4 below). Hence, $`T_\mathrm{e}T_\mathrm{i}`$ for $`\dot{m}B_7^{2.6}0.1`$ and $`T_\mathrm{e}<T_\mathrm{i}`$ for $`\dot{m}B_7^{2.6}0.1`$.

### 4.5. Cooling functions

The free-free optical depth of the post-shock flow parallel to $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is $`\tau _{\mathrm{ff}}0.1\mathrm{}1.0`$. Hence, a flow cooling by bremsstrahlung only is optically thin to a first approximation with $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{rad}}=\mathrm{1.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^{27}n_\mathrm{e}^2T_\mathrm{e}^{1/2}`$ erg cm-3s-1. In this case, the divergence term is a locally defined quantity which obviates the need for solving the radiative transfer equation. Most authors have simplified the radiative transfer by replacing $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ by a generalized cooling function expressed as the sum of terms of the form $`\rho ^aT_\mathrm{e}^b\rho ^{ab}P_\mathrm{e}^b`$ with $`a,b`$ fixed for each term. Bremsstrahlung is represented by $`a=2,b=0.5`$, cyclotron radiation by $`a=0.15,b=2.5`$ (Saxton & Wu 2001, and references therein). The concept of a cooling function is applicable in approximately the same limit as the one-fluid plasma, $`\dot{m}B_7^{2.6}0.1`$ (see Fig. 4 below). This limitation applies to radiative transfer through the shock front. For tall columns which lose energy preferentially through their sides, cooling functions are applicable also for lower values of $`\dot{m}B_7^{2.6}`$

### 4.6. Energy Transport by Conduction

The heat conduction flow, $`\stackrel{}{q}n_\mathrm{e}T_\mathrm{e}^{5/2}T_\mathrm{e}`$, is of importance only in regions of high particle density, high electron temperature, and/or a large gradient of the latter, i.e. (i) in the transition between the cooling flow and the stellar atmosphere and (ii) in the shock front with the adjoining pre-shock flow (Imamura et al. 1987). Most attempts to solve Eqs. (1)–(6) proceed with $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$. Wu (2000) has summarized the effects of heat conduction in mCVs.

### 4.7. Atomic Line Emission

The post-shock region is optically thick for the stronger atomic emission lines, complicating their calculation. One may adapt a procedure known from stellar atmosphere research which involves two steps: (i) the temperature structure is calculated assuming continuum absorption and emission only; (ii) the emerging emission line fluxes are calculated using this temperature structure. Tennant et al. (1998) and Wu et al. (2001) have used a cooling function for step (i) and a simplified line transfer for step (ii). An accurate calculation of the line profiles and line intensities requires substantial effort.

## 5. Oscillatory Solutions and Linear Stability Analysis

Time-dependent solutions of the hydrodynamic equations can be used to study the stability of stationary solutions. The added complication of the time dependence is compensated for by the simplicity of the coolong function. The stability analysis proceeds by, e.g., (i) assuming small perturbations of the position of the shock front and of the plasma parameters, (ii) linearization, and (iii) analysis of the growth rates of the harmonics of the oscillations (Langer et al. 1982, Saxton & Wu 2001, Wu 2000 and references therein). The possible frequencies are the equivalent to the harmonic oscillations of a pipe which is open at one end.

Saxton & Wu (2001) confirm earlier findings that shocks cooling by bremsstrahlung only are unstable against oscillations, except possibly in the fundamental mode. Shocks dominated by cyclotron cooling, on the other hand, are stable in the fundamental and all reasonably occurring higher oscillation modes. This suggests that stationarity is a reasonable model assumption if cyclotron emission is the dominant cooling agent. The low-amplitude oscillations with periods of $`13`$ s seen in several mCVs (e.g. Larsson 1982) probably originate from regions within the accretion spot which are dominated by bremsstrahlung.

Solutions of Eqs. (1)–(6) with a time-dependent mass flux $`\dot{m}`$ incident on the white dwarf do not exist to my knowledge.

## 6. Stationary Solutions with Cooling Function

With $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}\rho ^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}}P^\mathrm{b}`$ (or a sum of such terms), only the hydrodynamic equations have to be solved. In the stationary case for linear or spherical geometry, Eqs. (1)–(4) reduce to a system of coupled ordinary (though non-linear) equations, in which all plasma parameters depend only on the radial coordiate.

### 6.1. One-fluid Plasma

For a one-fluid plasma, $`P=P_\mathrm{e}+P_\mathrm{i}`$ and Eqs. (3) and (4) may be combined to a single energy equation. The linear case is simplest and applies if the shock height is $`h_{\mathrm{sh}}R_{\mathrm{wd}}`$. With $`f_{\mathrm{rad}}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}=0`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$, $`\gamma =5/3`$, $`g`$ const, $`z=rR_{\mathrm{wd}}`$, and $`v<0`$, the hydrodynamic equations reduce to

$$\frac{d}{dz}(\rho v)=0$$
(7)
$$v\frac{dv}{dz}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{dP}{dz}=g$$
(8)
$$v\frac{dP}{dz}\frac{5}{3}v\frac{P}{\rho }\frac{d\rho }{dz}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c},$$
(9)
For the above cooling function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$, a closed-integral solution has been given Wu et al. (1994). Because of the one-fluid assumption, the solution is limited to the high $`\dot{m}`$, low $`B`$ part of the $`\dot{m}`$$`B`$ plane. In the spherical case, the mass flux $`\rho v`$ in Eq. (7) and $`g`$ in Eq. (8) are $`r`$-dependent. The linear and spherical cases can be solved analytically if cooling is by bremsstrahlung only (Aizu 1973).

A potentially important case is that of a narrow, tall column (width $``$ height $`R_{\mathrm{wd}}`$) which emits cyclotron radiation primarily sideways ($`B`$). The radiative flux vector is then approximately in the $`x,y`$-plane which effectively decouples hydrodynamics and radiative transfer. With certain simplifying assumptions on the transverse radiative transfer, the radiative losses can be approximated by a cooling function (Wu et al. 1994, Cropper et al. 1999).

### 6.2. Two-fluid Plasma

For strong cyclotron cooling ($`\dot{m}B_7^{2.6}0.1`$), the one-fluid approximation becomes invalid. Electron and ion temperatures differ, and Eq. (9) has to be replaced by

$$v\frac{dP_\mathrm{i}}{dz}\frac{5}{3}v\frac{P_\mathrm{i}}{\rho }\frac{d\rho }{dz}=\frac{2}{3}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ei}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h})$$
(10)
$$v\frac{dP_\mathrm{e}}{dz}\frac{5}{3}v\frac{P_\mathrm{e}}{\rho }\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\frac{2}{3}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ei}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}\right).$$
(11)
Although the temperatures deduced this way will be more reliable, the question of electron heating in the shock ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}`$) implies a remaining uncertainty. Temperature profiles of ions and electrons with different assumptions on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}`$ (and $`\rho _\mathrm{o}`$) are depicted, e.g., in Saxton & Wu (2001, their Fig. 3). For strong heating, the profiles are characterized by a maximum at the shock and a rapid decrease thereafter, while weak shock heating causes the electron temperature to assume a maximum further downstream, approaching the case of pure Coulomb heating.

## 7. Stationary Plane-parallel Two-fluid Radiation-hydrodynamics

The only truely radiation-hydrodynamic solution is that of Woelk & Beuermann (1996). Fischer & Beuermann (2001) present further results including a parametrization of the temperature profiles.

Their approach involves the solution of the four hydrodynamic equations, Eqs. (7), (8), (10), and (4) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{h}=0`$ and $`q=0`$

$$v\frac{dP_\mathrm{e}}{dz}\frac{5}{3}v\frac{P_\mathrm{e}}{\rho }\frac{d\rho }{dz}=\frac{2}{3}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ei}}\frac{dF_{\mathrm{rad}}}{dz}\right),$$
(12)
simultaneous with the radiative transfer equations (5) and (6). The solution of the latter was developed from a Feautrier code for plane-parallel stellar atmospheres, modified to include the anisotropy of cyclotron absorption and emission. The radiative transfer is fully frequency and angle dependent. The solution is energy conserving and ensures that the radiative flux (Eq. 6) exactly equals the accretion energy $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{m}v_\mathrm{o}^2`$. However, because of the plane-parallel ansatz the radiative flux is directed radially. In his review, Wu (2000) incorrectly states that the diffusion approximation was used and that energy is not conserved.

The solution relates $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ in a unique way to $`\dot{m}`$, $`B`$, and $`M_{\mathrm{wd}}`$ as the physical input parameters. Fig. 2 shows examples of the profiles of $`T_\mathrm{e}(z)`$, $`T_\mathrm{i}(z)`$, and $`v(z)`$ for $`B=30`$ MG and $`\dot{m}=0.01,0.1`$ and 1.0 g cm-2s-1. Electron and ion temperatures are found to differ substantially near the shock front and equilibrate only further downstream. All flows are optically thick in the cyclotron fundamental which requires a negative electron temperature gradient to allow the energy to escape through the shock front. This is a consequence of the assumption of an infinite layer and may no longer hold true for columns of finite width. The effect of plama instabilities heating the electrons in the shock has not so far been considered by us and one can only speculate as to the effect they may have in the presence of optically thick radiative transfer. If the radiation escapes through the shock front, radiative transfer is likely to counteract plasma heating and will tend to depress $`T_\mathrm{e}`$. I consider it unlikely that $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ at the shock can be anything near the Rankine-Hugoniot temperature for high $`B`$ and low $`\dot{m}`$. The low temperatures of $`1`$ keV observed from some AM Her stars (e.g. Schwope, this conference) seem to support this conclusion, but it is fair to state that the importance of plasma instabilities in mCV shocks is far from understood and further study is needed.

In Fischer & Beuermann (2001), we have parameterized the profiles $`T_\mathrm{e}(z)`$ by their peak value $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and the shock height $`h_{\mathrm{sh}}`$. Fig. 3 shows $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ normalized to the ion temperature at the shock which initially contains all the energy (left panel) and a normalized version of the shock height (right panel). Both representations unify the results for a large range of model parameters (“data” points) into a unique dependence on the quantity $`\dot{m}B_7^{2.6}`$ (“data” points and solid curves for 0.6 M$`_{}`$, dotted curves for 1 M$`_{}`$). It is noteworthy that the decreasing peak electron temperature for low $`\dot{m}B^{2.6}`$ merges into the results for the bombardment solution (straight lines). In the same limit, the normalized shock height $`h_{\mathrm{sh}}B_7^{2.6}`$ (in cm) becomes constant. From Fig. 3 (right panel) one finds a limiting shock height for the 0.6 $``$ white dwarf and for low $`\dot{m}B^{2.6}`$ of $`h_{\mathrm{sh}}\mathrm{1.9\hspace{0.17em}10}^8B_7^{2.6}`$, i.e. $`10^7`$ cm for 30 MG and as low as $`\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ cm for 100 MG. Since bremsstrahlung-dominated shocks at the same $`B`$ but higher $`\dot{m}`$ will be still lower, the assumption of plane-parallel or pillbox-shaped shocks is likely to be good for the higer field strengths.

In an attempt to generalize the results for a finite column width $`D`$, we have calculated the additional energy losses by optically thick radiation leaving their sides using a ray tracing technique (Fischer & Beuermann 2001). For a given $`\dot{m}`$, these added losses cause the equilibrium temperature to be lower than in an infinite layer. A correct treatment of the problem would require a truly 2-D radiative transfer which presents a substantial complication and introduces the with $`D`$ as an additional model parameter besides $`\dot{m}`$. No such calculations are available in the literature. Fischer & Beuermann suggest a simple correction which ensures energy conservation: the electron temperature derived for $`\dot{m}_{\mathrm{}}`$ for an infinite layer approximately applies to the higher value $`\dot{m}_\mathrm{D}=r\dot{m}_{\mathrm{}}`$ for finite $`D`$, where $`r=/\dot{m}v_\mathrm{o}`$ is the ratio of the total radiative loss from the finite region over the accretion energy (both per cm2). They provide a calibration of $`r`$ as a function of $`h_{\mathrm{sh}/\mathrm{D}}`$ and $`\dot{m}B^{2.6}`$. Finally, note that in all models which approximate the optically thick radiative transfer by an emergent Planck spectrum cut off at some critical frequency $`\nu ^{}`$ energy is, by definition, only approximately preserved.

## 8. Applications

### 8.1. Free-standing vs. Buried Shocks

The ram pressure $`P_{\mathrm{ram}}=\rho _\mathrm{o}v_\mathrm{o}^2`$ of the infalling matter suppresses the bottom of the cooling flow into the atmosphere of the white dwarf. If also the shock front is located within the atmosphere, the shock is considered submerged or buried (Frank et al. 1988). Fig. 4 compares $`h_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ vs. $`\dot{m}`$ (from Fig. 3, right panel) to the depression produced by $`P_{\mathrm{ram}}`$. one finds that bremsstrahlung-dominated shocks are buried for $`\dot{m}>10`$ g cm-2, while cyclotron-dominated shocks in high-field polars may be buried for much lower $`\dot{m}`$. To be sure, the chance for the upward directed radiation to escape will depend on the details of the geometry.

### 8.2. Emerging spectra as a function of $`\dot{m}`$

We have employed a heuristic model to estimate the effect of buried shocks on the emerging spectra. Specifically, we use a field strength of $`B=14`$ MG (appropriate for AM Herculis) and consider radiation emerging at an angle against the radial direction of 60. We consider subcolumns with $`\dot{m}`$ values ranging from $`10^3`$ to 100 g cm-2s-1, disregard the radiative interaction of the subsolumns, adopt a warm absorber which leaves soft X-rays largely unaffected, and approximately account for photoelectric absorption in the surrounding atmosphere using a ray tracing technique. Radiation intercepted by the white dwarf atmosphere is assumed to be reprocessed into UV radiation and soft X-rays with a temperature at the base of the individual subcolumns and their surroundings, which depends on the energy flux incident on the white dwarf. For simplicity, we assume blackbodies for the reprocessed flux. This assumption may be acceptable for the hot sections of the atmosphere, but the cooler UV emitting parts of the heated pole cap would correctly show the Lyman edge in absorption (Gänsicke et al. 1998, Fig. 12). In Fig. 5, the original emission and the reprocessed spectra are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively. For low $`\dot{m}`$, the shock stands above the atmosphere and the emitted radiation escapes more or less freely, for larger $`\dot{m}`$ the originally emitted radiation is increasingly absorbed and reprocessed into soft X-rays, until at $`\dot{m}=100`$ g cm-2s-1 the emission region is hidden behind an average column density of $`10^{25}`$ g cm-2 and is completely reprocessed.

### 8.3. Spectral synthesis of AM Herculis

The characteristic shapes of the spectra in Fig. 5 depend on $`\dot{m}`$ and $`B`$. For a given field strength, such set of spectra can be used to synthesize the observed spectral energy distribution and thus yield the generating $`\dot{m}`$-distribution. Fig. 6 shows the result for AM Herculis, based on the cyclotron and X-ray spectral energy distributions observed near the respective orbital maxima. The cyclotron flux (Priedhorsky et al. 1978) is modelled by contributions with 100 g cm-2s-1 ( curve a) to $`\dot{m}=10^3`$ g cm-2s-1 (curve f), with very small contributions for $`\dot{m}>3`$ g cm-2s-1. The hard X-ray spectrum, on the other hand, originates mostly from mass fluxes around 1 g cm-2s-1, and the large soft X-ray flux is produced by $`\dot{m}>10`$ g cm-2s-1. Hence, the origin of the individual contributions is to a sufficient extent mutually exclusive. It is comforting and adds to the credibility of the result that the contributions for $`\dot{m}`$ around 1 g cm-2s-1 derived from the cyclotron and X-ray fluxes are consistent with each other. The same analysis has been performed for the low state of AM Herculis, using the infrared cyclotron spectrum of Bailey et al. (1991) and the low-state ROSAT PSPC spectrum of September 1991.

### 8.4. Distribution of Mass Fluxes in the Spot on AM Herculis

Figure 7 depicts the contributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{M}`$ to the total time-averaged $`\dot{M}`$ in AM Her in its high state as derived from the spectra in Fig. 6. Also shown is the result of a corresponding analysis of the low state. While the errors in the derived values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{M}`$ are much larger in the low state, a plausible picture emerges. The high state is characterized by a large contribution from high $`\dot{m}`$ which are largely missing in the low state, while a drizzle of low $`\dot{m}`$ seems to be present at all times (including most low states observed so far). Quite possibly, these differences exist already in the flow passing through the nozzle in L1. Note that “100 g cm-2s-1” is actually a synonym for dense blobs since we are not able to distinguish between more or less dense blobs. The fate of blobs of different density is not considered here as long as the shocks are likely to be buried (compare Frank et al. 1988).

### 8.5. Variation of Hard vs. Soft X-rax Fluxes

It is long known that soft X-ray emission does not prevail in all AM Her stars, a notable exception being some systems with a low polar field strength (Beuermann & Schwope 1994, Ramsay et al. 1994, Ramsay this conference). One possible explanation is the shift of the whole $`\dot{m}`$-distribution towards smaller $`\dot{m}`$, which is expected to occur in systems with lower field strengths (Beuermann 1998).

## 9. Outlook

An attempt to model the entire internal structure of the emission spots in polars is probably futile. Some important aspects of the relevant physics need additional attention, however. Among them are the possible heating of electrons by plasma instabilities in mCV shocks, the effect of the optically thick radiative transfer on $`T_\mathrm{e}`$, and the further development of two-fluid models. Pioneering studies of two-dimensional radiative transfer may be enlightening, too. On the observational side, studies high time resolution with the large ground-based and space-borne telescopes will undoubtedly provide a rapidly increasing insight into the dynamics and the spatial structure of the cyclotron as well as the X-ray emission regions.

## References

Aizu, K. 1973, Prog. Theor. Phys., 49, 1184

Beuermann, K., & Schwope, A. D. 1994, ASP Conf. Ser., 56, 119

Beuermann, K. 1998, in TATA Golden Jubilee Conf. High Energy Astronomy and Astrophysics, p. 100, eds. P. C. Agrawal & P. R. Visvanath

Cropper, M., Wu, K., Ramsay, G., & Kocabiyik, A. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 684

Bailey, J., Ferrario, L., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1991, MNRAS, 251, 37p

Fischer, A., & Beuermann, K. 2001, A&A, 373, 211

Frank, J., King, A.R., & Lasota, J.-P. 1988, A&A, 193, 113

Gänsicke, B. T., Beuermann, K., de Martino, D. 1995, A&A, 303, 127

Gänsicke, B. T., Hoard, D.W. Beuermann, K., et al. 1998, A&A, 338, 933

Hameury, J.-M., & King, A. R. 1988, MNRAS, 235, 433

Imamura, J. N., Durison, R. H., Lamb, D. Q., Weast, G. J. 1987, ApJ, 313, 298

Lamb, D. Q., & Masters, A. R., ApJ, 234, L117

Langer, S. H., Chanmugam, G., & Shaviv, G. 1982, ApJ, 258, 289

Larsson, S. 1992, A&A, 265, 133

Lesch, H. 1990, A&A, 239, 437

King, A. R., & Lasota, J.-P. MNRAS, 188, 653

Kuijpers J., & Pringle J. E. 1982, A&A 114, L4

Priedhorsky, W., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., Werner, & M., Krzeminski, W. 1978, ApJ, 226, 397

Ramsay, G., 1994, MNRAS, 270, 692

Rothschild, R. E., Gruber, D. E., Knight, F. K., et al. 1981, ApJ, 250, 723

Saxton, C. J., Wu, K. 2001, 324, 659

Stone, R. G., Tsurutani, B. T., eds. 1985, Collisionless Shocks in the Heliosphere: A Tutoral Review, Geophysical Monograph 34, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

Tennant, A. F., Wu, K., O’Dell, S. L., Weisskopf, M. C. 1998, PASA, 15, 339

Woelk, U., & Beuermann, K. 1992, A&A, 256, 498

Woelk, U., & Beuermann, K. 1993, A&A, 280, 169

Woelk, U., & Beuermann, K. 1996, A&A, 306, 232

Wu, K. 2000, Space Sci.Rev., 93, 611

Wu, K., Chanmugam, G., & Shaviv, G. 1994 ApJ, 426, 664

Wu, K., Cropper, M., & Ramsay, G. 2001 MNRAS, 327, 208

Zheleznyakov, V. V. 1983, Ap&SS, 97, 229


text:
# Temperature Dependence of the Dielectric Constant and Resistivity of Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors.

## Abstract

We study the effect that the ferromagnetic order has on the electrical properties of Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors. We analyze the temperature dependence of the dielectric constant and of the resistivity of Ga1-xMnxAs. In our treatment the electronic structure of the semiconductor is described by a six band Kohn-Luttinger Hamiltonian, the thermal fluctuations of the Mn magnetic moments are treated in the mean field approximation, the carrier-carrier interaction within the random phase approximation, and the transport properties using the relaxation time approximation. We find that the Thomas-Fermi length changes near 8$`\%`$ when going from the ferromagnetic to the paramagnetic phase. We also find, in good agreement with the experiments, that the resistivity changes near 20$`\%`$ when going from zero to the Curie temperature. We explain this change in the resistivity in terms of the variation of the Fermi surface and the transport scattering time when going from the ferromagnetic phase to the paramagnetic phase.

The incorporation of Mn atoms into III-V semiconductors by low-temperature MBE techniques was a big advance for the integration of the spin degree of freedom in the semiconductor technology. In Ga1-xMnxAs, and for Mn concentrations larger than $`x1\%`$, the magnetic ion substitutes a cation, introducing a $`S=5/2`$ local moment and a hole in the valence band of the host semiconductor. These compounds present ferromagnetic order, with a Curie temperature, $`T_C`$ near 100K Matsukura et al. (1998); Ohno (1998), and this behavior is generally called carrier induced ferromagnetism because the hole carriers mediate the ferromagnetic coupling between the manganese ionsDietl et al. (2000); Jungwirth et al. (1999); Chattopadhyay et al. (2001); Calderón et al. (2002). The optimal Mn concentration is near $`x0.05`$ and these materials are known as Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors (DMS). ExperimentallyOhno and Matsukura (2001) it is found that the presence of compensating defects reduces the number of carriers in the system being the density of carriers, $`p`$, much smaller than that of magnetic ions, $`c`$. For the optimal Mn concentration and not very large carriers densities, most of the magnetic properties of the system seems to be reasonable well described by using a virtual crystal approximation (VCA) Dietl et al. (2000); Jungwirth et al. (1999) that neglects thermal and quantum fluctuations as well as disorder effects. These effects are more important as the carrier density in the system becomes largerSchliemann et al. (2001); Calderón et al. (2002); Gonzalo Alvarez and Dagotto (2002). Post-growth annealing reduces the number of compensating defects, increases the density of mobile holes in the semiconductor and increases the value of the Curie temperatureS.J.Potashnik et al. (2001); Edmonds et al. (2002). In the carrier induced ferromagnetism model $`T_C`$ is proportional to the carrier density of states at the Fermi energy, and for this reason the annealed samples have a higher $`T_C`$ than the as-growth samples. Another important difference between the annealed and the as-growth samples is that the later ones present a metal-insulator transition at $`T_C`$ that is absent in the former onesS.J.Potashnik et al. (2001); Edmonds et al. (2002). In the annealed DMS samples the resistance increases with temperature ($`T`$) near 25$`\%`$ when going from zero to $`T_C`$ and remains practically constant when $`T`$ is further increased. As stated above, the post-growth annealing process reduces the number of defects in the system and the resistivity curves of the annealed samples reflect more defect-free intrinsic properties of the diluted magnetic semiconductor.

Most of the theoretical works on DMS study the origin of the ferromagnetic order: the effects that the electronic properties of the host semiconductor have on the ferromagnetic ground state and the value of $`T_C`$. In this paper we study the $`T`$ dependence of the electronic properties of the DMS. We analyze how the spin polarization of the holes affects the electronic properties of the system and from that we obtain the temperature dependence of the dielectric constant and of the conductivity of the doped semiconductor.

The main result of our paper is presented in Fig.1. There, the $`T`$ dependence of the electrical resistivity for Ga1-xMnxAs with $`x0.05`$ is plotted for two different hole densities. The variation of the resistivity when going from zero $`T`$ to $`T_C`$ is near $`20\%`$, in good agreement with experiments in the more intrinsic post growth annealed samples S.J.Potashnik et al. (2001); Edmonds et al. (2002). As we discuss below, this variation of the resistivity with $`T`$ is due to the dependence of the Fermi surface and scattering times on the carrier spin polarization and therefore on $`T`$. The model we present explains the observed behavior of the electrical resistivity with temperature.

In our calculations we describe the electronic structure of the DMS using the six band Kohn-Luttinger Hamiltonian and the disorder and thermal effects are treated in a mean field approximation. The dielectric constant is calculated in the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) formalism and the conductivities using the relaxation time approximation.

The system is described by the following Hamiltonian,

$$H=H_{holes}+J\underset{I,i}{}𝐒_I𝐬_i\delta (𝐫_i𝐑_I),$$
(1)
Where $`H_{holes}`$ is the part of the Hamiltonian which describes the itinerant holes and the last term is the antiferromagnetic exchange interaction between the spin of the Mn2+ ions located at $`𝐑_I`$ and the spin $`𝐬_i`$ of the carriers. In order to obtain the temperature dependence of the electronic and magnetic properties of the system, we minimize the free energy per unit volume,

$$=_{ions}+_{holes},$$
(2)
where $`_{ions}`$ is the contribution of the ion spins to the free energy and in the mean field description has the form,

$$_{ions}=Tc\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(hS/T)}{\mathrm{sinh}(h/2T)}$$
(3)
being $`h=Jp\xi /2`$ and $`\xi `$ the spin polarization of the carriers. $`_{holes}`$ is the free energy of the holes, which is obtained in the virtual crystal approximation (VCA) using a Luttinger $`𝐤𝐩`$ model for describing the carriers. In the VCA the average density of states for the real system is replaced by that of the average Hamiltonian. This approach implies a translational invariant system with an effective magnetic field acting on the carrier spins $`H_{eff}=JScm`$, being $`m`$ the polarization of the Mn spins. In the Luttinger $`𝐤𝐩`$ model the wave function of the holes in the state $`(n,𝐤)`$, where $`n`$ is the subband index and $`𝐤`$ is the wave vector, is expressed as

$$\psi _{n,𝐤}(𝐫)=e^{i𝐤𝐫}\underset{J,m_j}{}\alpha _{n,𝐤}^{J,m_J}|J,m_J>,$$
(4)
where $`|J,m_J>`$ are the six $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4v}`$ valence band wave functions. The coefficients $`\alpha _{n,𝐤}^{J,m_J}`$ and the corresponding eigenvalues, $`\epsilon _{n,𝐤}`$, depend on the spin polarization of the Mn, and are obtained, from the Luttinger $`𝐤𝐩`$ HamiltonianDietl et al. (2001); M. Albolfath and MacDonald (2001).

By minimizing Eq.(2) we obtain the $`T`$-dependence of the spin polarization of the carriers, $`\xi (T)`$ and of the Mn, $`m(T)`$. In the VCA the Curie temperature has the expression $`T_c=2/3cJ^2n_\sigma (\mu )`$ where $`n_\sigma (\mu )`$ is the density of states per site and spin at the Fermi levelDietl et al. (2001); M. Albolfath and MacDonald (2001). Through the dependence of the Hamiltonian on the spin polarization, we obtain the temperature dependence of the eigenvectors, eigenvalues and chemical potential. Along this paper we consider always the optimal Mn concentration of $`x`$=0.05Ohno and Matsukura (2001) and an exchange coupling $`J`$=0.060$`eVnm^3`$Okabayashi et al. (1998). Although the properties of the system depend on the orientation of the magnetizationDietl-bisAlbolfath, this dependence is much smaller than the T-dependence and since we are interested in the variation of the electronic properties with $`T`$ we fix the Mn spin polarization in the $`z`$-direction

From the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, we calculate the dielectric constant that in the RPA has the form,

$$\frac{ϵ(𝐪,\omega )}{ϵ_0}=1\frac{4\pi e^2}{ϵ_0q^2}\chi (𝐪,\omega ),$$
(5)
being $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ the susceptibility,

$$\chi (𝐪,\omega )=\underset{i,j,𝐤}{}\frac{n_F(\epsilon _{i,𝐤+𝐪})n_F(\epsilon _{j,𝐤})}{\epsilon _{i,𝐤+𝐪}\epsilon _{j,𝐤}+\mathrm{}\omega }f_{(i,𝐤)(j,𝐤+𝐪)},$$
(6)
with

$$f_{(i,𝐤)(j,𝐤^{})}=\left(\underset{J,m_J}{}(\alpha _{i,𝐤}^{J,m_J})^{}\alpha _{j,𝐤^{}}^{J,m_J}\right)^2,$$
(7)
where $`n_F`$ denotes the Fermi-Dirac distribution and $`ϵ_0`$ the dielectric constant of the host semiconductor. In the GaAs case $`ϵ_0`$=12.5

In Fig. 2 we plot the static susceptibility, $`\chi (𝐪)=\chi (𝐪,\omega `$=0) as a function of the wave vector for $`p`$=0.02$`nm^3`$, and two different temperatures: $`T`$=0 where the ground state is ferromagnetic with $`m`$=1 and $`\xi `$=0.777, and $`T`$=100K$`>T_C`$57K, where the system is paramagnetic, $`m=\xi `$ =0. The k.p Hamiltonian has cubic symmetry, and the susceptibility depends not just on the absolute value of q, but also on its orientation. However, for the range of parameters we are interested in, the dependence is almost negligible. We choose always the wavector q pointing to the  direction. Furthermore, in the ferromagnetic case, since the magnetic anisotropy is small, the dependence of the susceptibility on the wave vector orientation is very small and not visible in the scale of Fig. 2. The susceptibility depends on $`T`$ mainly at small wave vectors, and this dependence occurs because the carrier screening ability is proportional to the number of states at the Fermi surface, and this is smaller in the ferromagnetic phase than in the paramagnetic phase. At small wave vectors, only the intraband excitations contribute to the susceptibility and the static dielectric constant can be written as,

$$\underset{q0}{lim}\frac{ϵ(𝐪)}{ϵ_0}=1+\frac{q_{TF}^2}{q^2},$$
(8)
and the T dependence of the screening properties can be characterized by the Thomas Fermi screening length, $`\lambda _{TF}1/q_{TF}`$. In Fig. 3 the $`T`$ dependence of $`\lambda _{TF}`$ is illustrated. We also show in the inset of Fig. 3 the $`T`$-dependence of the ion spin polarization for the same set of parameters. The screening length decreases with $`T`$ and changes near 8$`\%`$ when going from the zero $`T`$ ferromagnetic phase to the paramagnetic phase. Since this change is due to the variation of the spin polarization, the Thomas-Fermi length remains constant for $`T`$ higher than $`T_c`$.

Finally and in order to compare with experimental information, we analyze the transport properties of the system. In the relaxation-time approximationJungwirth et al.  the conductivity has the form,

$$\sigma _{\alpha ,\beta }=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}V}\underset{n,𝐤}{}\frac{\tau _{n,𝐤}}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\epsilon _{n,𝐤}}{k_\alpha }\frac{\epsilon _{n,𝐤}}{k_\beta }\left(\frac{n_F}{\epsilon }(\epsilon _{n,𝐤})\right),$$
(9)
where $`\tau _{n,𝐤}`$ is the elastic scattering time of the electronic state $`(n,𝐤)`$, that has the expression,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{n,𝐤}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}C_lQ_l^2{\displaystyle \underset{n^{},𝐤^{}}{}}\left|M_{n,n^{}}^{\text{k},\text{k}^{}}\right|^2`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\text{k},\text{k}^{}})\delta (\epsilon _{n,𝐤}\epsilon _{n^{},𝐤^{}})`$
with

$$M_{n,n^{}}^{\text{k},\text{k}^{}}=\frac{e^2}{ϵ_0ϵ(|𝐤𝐤^{}|)|𝐤𝐤^{}|^2}f_{(n,𝐤)(n^{},𝐤^{})},$$
(11)
and $`C_l`$ is the density of scattering defects with charge $`Q_le`$. Using equations (10,11) for the scattering time we have assumed that the main scattering centers are Mn2+ acceptors, As-antisite defects, and Mn interstitials, all of them have a Coulomb interaction with the carriersJungwirth et al. . At finite temperature the carriers are also scattered by short-range spin fluctuationsFisher and J.S.Langer (1968); F.C.Zumsteg and R.D.Parks (1970). However we have neglected the contribution of this spin flip process to the elastic scattering time because the Coulomb contribution is orders of magnitude largerF.C.Zumsteg and R.D.Parks (1970); Calderón et al. (1998). The conductivity of DMS at $`T`$=0, for different hole densities and different amount of disorder has been calculated recently in Ref. Jungwirth et al. . Here we study the dependence of the conductivity on $`T`$. We have evaluated expressions (9),(10),(11) for different spin polarization of the holes, which correspond to different temperatures. Three factors contribute to the variation of the electrical conductivity with $`T`$. i) A change of the thermal Fermi distribution of the carriers. In the range of temperature of interest this effect produces only a small variation of the electronic propertiesnot . ii) The change of $`T`$ produces a change in the dielectric function Fig.2, and therefore a change in the matrix element Eq.(11). However this effect is very weak because in the transport scattering time the forward scattering is suppressed by the $`(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\text{k},\text{k}^{}})`$ term and the more important matrix elements have associated a large transfer of momentum for which the electrical susceptibility is practically $`T`$ independent, see Fig.2. iii) The change from the ferromagnetic to the paramagnetic ground state produces a reduction of the majority spin Fermi surface area. For that reason the wave vector difference that appear in the matrix element Eq.(11) is bigger in the ferromagnetic phase than in the paramagnetic phase, and therefore, the scattering time and the conductivity are larger in the ferromagnetic phase than in the paramagnetic phase. This is the main contribution to the variation of the conductivity with $`T`$.

In Fig.(1) we plot the resistivity of Ga1-xMnxAs, for $`x`$=0.05, $`J`$=60$`meVnm^3`$ and two different densities, $`p`$=0.2$`nm^3`$ ($`T_C=57`$K) and $`p`$=0.6$`nm^3`$ ($`T_C=125`$K). We normalize the resistivity to the value of the resistivity in the paramagnetic phase. As the temperatures studied are always much smaller than the Fermi temperature, in the paramagnetic phase the resistivity is practically $`T`$ independent. As reported in ref.(Jungwirth et al. ) in the ferromagnetic phase there is an anisotropic effect, and the resistivity is different for directions parallel and perpendicular to the magnetization. The anisotropy is $``$ 2.5 $`\%`$ for the $`p`$=0.2$`nm^3`$ case and smaller than $`0.5\%`$ for the $`p`$=0.6$`nm^3`$ case. More interesting, for both hole densities there is a bing change, near $`20\%`$, in the value of the resistivity when going from zero $`T`$ to $`T_C`$. This change is very similar to the experimentally observedS.J.Potashnik et al. (2001); Edmonds et al. (2002) in the post growth annealed samples. Also the overall shape of the resistivity versus $`T`$ curve is similar to the experimental one.

Therefore we conclude that our model, that is based in the use of a)the six band $`𝐤𝐩`$ model for the band structure of the DMS, b)the mean field approximation for describing the thermal fluctuations, c)the RPA for the dielectric constant and d)the relaxation-time approximation for the resistivity, describe appropriately the electric properties of DMS and their dependence on $`T`$. Our theory is able to describe adequately the experimental dependence of the resistivity on $`T`$S.J.Potashnik et al. (2001); Edmonds et al. (2002).

From our calculations we know that the variation of the resistivity when going form the ferromagnetic phase to the paramagnetic phase is due to the different Fermi surfaces that have these phases. The wave vector transferred in a scattering event across the Fermi surface is larger in the ferromagnetic phase than in the paramagnetic phase and this produces that the resistivity in the paramagnetic phase is larger than in the ferromagnetic phase.

We are grateful to G.Platero for helpful discussions. Financial support is acknowledged from Grants No MAT2002-04429-C03-01 and MAT2002-04095-C02-01 (MCyT, Spain) and Fundación Ramón Areces.