text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The standard model of the basic interactions consists of two sectors, the QCD-sector based on an unbroken and confining gauge theory in color space, and the electroweak sector , based on the gauge group $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$, which is spontaneously broken. In QCD the gauge bosons (gluons) are massless but three of the gauge bosons of the electroweak sector acquire masses through the spontaneous symmetry breaking. This looks like a peculiar asymmetry between the strong and electroweak sectors, and many authors have attempted to avoid it by extending the standard model, e.g. by considering composite models  for leptons, quarks and the weak bosons.

As in particular emphasized by ’t Hooft, the asymmetry between the two sectors is, in fact, much less pronounced if one views the electroweak gauge model from a different point of view , using the idea of complementarity . Like in QCD, the electroweak sector can be built upon a confining gauge theory. But in contrast to QCD such a theory does not show a clear-cut distinction between the confining phase and the Higgs phase, like there is no such distinction between the gaseous and liquid phases of water. A continuous transition between the two phases is possible.

In this paper we take this change of viewpoint seriously and suggest that the observed electroweak interactions are indeed due to a confining gauge theory. As long as the confinement scale is disregarded, the theory is identical to the standard model of the electroweak interactions as emphasized in ref. . But we shall demonstrate that the observations, in particular the structure of the neutral current interaction and the strength of the electroweak mixing angle $`\theta _W`$, suggest that new non-perturbative effects (e.g. bound state effects) might show up at the energy scale of the order of several hundred GeV.

## 2 The electroweak gauge group and confinement

We start by writing down the Lagrangian of the electroweak standard model, taking into account only the first family of leptons and quarks:

$`_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }+\overline{L}_Li\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}L_L+\overline{Q}_Li\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}Q_L+\overline{e}_Ri\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}e_R`$
$`+\overline{u}_Ri\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}u_R+\overline{d}_Ri\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}d_R+G_e\overline{e}_R(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }L_L)+G_d\overline{d}_R(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }Q_L)`$
$`+G_u\overline{u}_R(\varphi Q_L)+h.c.+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\mu \varphi )^{}(D^\mu \varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2}}\varphi \varphi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\varphi \varphi ^{})^2.`$
The covariant derivative is given by:

$`D_\mu =_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}Y𝒜_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\tau ^aB_\mu ^a.`$ (43)
The field strength tensors are as usual

$`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu B_\nu ^a_\nu B_\mu ^a+gϵ^{abc}B_\mu ^bB_\nu ^c`$ (44)
$`f_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu .`$ (45)
We have used the definitions:

$`L_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ e_L\end{array}\right),Q_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_L\\ d_L\end{array}\right),\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^0\\ \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right)\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=i\sigma _2\varphi ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ \varphi _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (54)
According to the well-known mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking the neutral component of the scalar field $`\varphi ^0`$ acquires a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value $`v`$, which gives rise in particular to the masses of the electroweak gauge bosons.

The Lagrangian (2) admits a much wider class of solutions, if we vary the parameters $`\mu ^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ arbitrarily. If $`\mu ^2`$ is positive, the $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge bosons remain massless and lead to a confinement of the corresponding electroweak charges. As pointed out by Osterwalder and Seiler  and, using the lattice approach, by Fradkin and Shenker , there is no phase transition between the Higgs phase and the confinement phase if the theory has a scalar field in the fundamental representation of the gauge group. However, they were restricting themselves to the case of an $`SU(2)`$ gauge group without fermions and using the so-called frozen Higgs approximation.

The absence of a phase transition allows one to carry out a smooth transition between the Higgs phase and the confinement phase, a phenomenon denoted as complementarity. However some care has to be taken with the notion of complementarity since it was shown by Damgaard and Heller , performing a mean field analysis, that for certain values of the parameters a phase transition can appear. We assume that the parameters in reality are such that the concept of complementarity can be applied.

Using this phenomenon we can start out from the electroweak Lagrangian (2) and study the confinement phase. In particular we shall concentrate on possible departures from the electroweak standard model at high energies and on the incorporation of the $`U(1)_Y`$ hypercharge which leads to the electromagnetic interaction.

In the confinement phase the physical particles are $`SU(2)_L`$ singlets. We introduce the following fundamental left-handed dual-quark doublets, which we denote as D-quarks:
leptonic D-quarks $`l_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\end{array}\right)`$ (spin $`1/2`$, left-handed)  hadronic D-quarks $`q_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)`$ (spin $`1/2`$, left-handed, $`SU(3)_c`$ triplet)  scalar D-quarks $`h_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1\\ h_2\end{array}\right)`$ (spin $`0`$).
The right-handed particles are those of the standard model. We can identify the left-handed fermions and electroweak bosons of the standard model as bound states:

$`\mathrm{neutrino}:`$ $`\nu _L\overline{h}l`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{electron}:`$ $`e_Lhl`$
$`\mathrm{up}\mathrm{type}\mathrm{quark}:`$ $`u_L\overline{h}q`$
$`\mathrm{down}\mathrm{type}\mathrm{quark}:`$ $`d_Lhq`$
$`\mathrm{Higgs}\mathrm{particle}:`$ $`\varphi \overline{h}h,s\text{-wave}`$
$`W^3\mathrm{boson}:`$ $`W^3\overline{h}h,p\text{-wave}`$
$`W^{}\mathrm{boson}:`$ $`W^{}hh,p\text{-wave}`$
$`W^+\mathrm{boson}:`$ $`W^+(hh)^{},p\text{-wave}.`$
These bound states have to be normalized properly. We shall consider this issue later on. Using a non-relativistic notation, we can say that the scalar Higgs particle is a $`\overline{h}h`$-state in which the two constituents are in an $`s`$-wave. The $`W^3`$-boson is the orbital excitation ($`p`$-wave). The $`W^+`$ ($`W^{}`$)-bosons are $`p`$-waves as well, composed of $`(hh)`$ $`(\overline{h}\overline{h})`$ respectively. Due to the $`SU(2)`$ structure of the wave function there are no $`s`$-wave states of the type $`(hh)`$ or $`(\overline{h}\overline{h})`$.

As usual in a quantum field theory, the problem is to identify the physical degrees of freedom. To do so we have to choose the gauge in the appropriate way. The Higgs doublet can be used to fix the gauge. Using the gauge freedom of the local $`SU(2)`$ group we perform a gauge rotation such that the scalar doublet takes the form:

$`h_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}F+h_{(1)}\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (58)
where the parameter $`F`$ is a real number. If $`F`$ is sufficiently large we can perform an $`1/F`$ expansion for the fields defined above. We have

$`\nu _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\overline{h}l)=l_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}l_1l_1`$
$`e_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(ϵ^{ij}h_il_j)=l_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}l_2l_2`$
$`u_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\overline{h}q)=q_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}q_1q_1`$
$`d_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(ϵ^{ij}h_iq_j)=q_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}q_2q_2`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F}}(\overline{h}h)=h_{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F}}h_{(1)}h_{(1)}h_{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2}}`$
$`W_\mu ^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{gF^2}}(\overline{h}D_\mu h)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)^2B_\mu ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{gF}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)_\mu h_{(1)}B_\mu ^3`$
$`W_\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}i}{gF^2}}(ϵ^{ij}h_iD_\mu h_j)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)^2B_\mu ^{}B_\mu ^{},`$
$`W_\mu ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}i}{gF^2}}(ϵ^{ij}h_iD_\mu h_j)\right)^{}=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)^2B_\mu ^+B_\mu ^+,`$ (59)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant of the gauge group $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`D_\mu `$ is the corresponding covariant derivative. As can be seen from (2), the physical particles are those appearing in the standard model. This is a consequence of the complementarity between the Higgs phase and the confinement phase. We adopt the usual notation $`B_\mu ^\pm =(B_\mu ^1iB_\mu ^2)/\sqrt{2}`$. The terms which are suppressed by the large scale $`F`$ are as irrelevant as the terms which are neglected in the Higgs phase when the Higgs field is expanded near its classical vacuum expectation value. If we match the expansion for the Higgs field $`\varphi =h_{(1)}+\frac{F}{2}`$ to the standard model, we see that $`F=2v=492`$ GeV where $`v`$ is the vacuum expectation value. This parameter can be identified with a typical scale for the theory in the confinement phase. The physical scale is defined as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=F/\sqrt{2}`$, the $`\sqrt{2}`$ factor is included here because the physical parameter is not $`v`$ but $`v/\sqrt{2}`$ as can be seen from the Lagrangian (2). We see in the expansion for $`W_\mu ^3`$ that the suppressed irrelevant terms start at the order $`2/F`$. We thus interpret the typical scale for the confinement of $`W_\mu ^3`$ as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W=\sqrt{2}F/4=173.9`$ GeV.

## 3 A global SU(2) symmetry

In the absence of the $`U(1)`$ gauge group the theory has a global $`SU(2)`$ symmetry besides the local $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry. The scalar fields and their complex conjugates can be written in terms of two doublets arranged in the following matrix:

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_1& h_2^{}\\ h_2& h_1^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (62)
The potential of the scalar field $`V(hh^{})`$ depends solely on

$`h^{}h`$ $`=`$ $`h_1^{}h_1+h_2^{}h_2`$
$`=`$ $`(\text{Re}h_1)^2+(\text{Im }h_1)^2+(\text{Re}h_2)^2+(\text{Im}h_2)^2=\text{det}M.`$
This sum is invariant under the group $`SO(4)`$, acting on the real vector $`(\text{Re}h_1,\text{Im}h_1,\text{Re}h_2,\text{Im}h_2)`$. This group is isomorphic to $`SU(2)SU(2)`$. One of these groups can be identified with the confining gauge group $`SU(2)_L`$, since $`\text{det}M`$ remains invariant under $`SU(2)_L`$:

$`\text{det}(UM)=\text{det}(M),USU(2)_L.`$ (64)
Now the second $`SU(2)`$ factor can be identified by considering the matrix $`M^{}`$

$`M^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_1& h_2\\ h_2^{}& h_1^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (67)
The determinant of $`M^{}`$, which is equal to $`\text{det}(M)`$, remains invariant under a $`SU(2)`$ transformation acting on the doublets $`(h_1,h_2^{})`$ and $`(h_2,h_1^{})`$.

These transformations commute with the $`SU(2)_L`$ transformations. They constitute the flavor group $`SU(2)_F`$, which is an exact symmetry as long as no other gauge group besides $`SU(2)_L`$ is present. With respect to $`SU(2)_F`$ the $`W`$-bosons form a triplet of states $`(W^+,W^{},W^3)`$. The left-handed fermions form $`SU(2)_F`$ doublets. Both the triplet as well as the doublets are, of course, $`SU(2)_L`$ singlets. Once we fix the gauge in the $`SU(2)_L`$ space such that $`h_2=0`$ and $`\text{Im}h_1=0`$, the two $`SU(2)`$ groups are linked together, and the $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets can be identified with the $`SU(2)_F`$ doublets. The global and unbroken $`SU(2)`$ symmetry dictates that the three $`W`$-bosons states, forming a $`SU(2)_F`$ triplet, have the same mass. Once the Yukawa-type interactions of the fields $`e_R`$, $`u_R`$ and $`d_R`$ with the corresponding left-handed bound systems are introduced, the flavor group $`SU(2)_F`$ is in general explicitly broken.

## 4 Electromagnetism and mixing

The next step is to include the electromagnetic interaction. The gauge group is $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$, where $`Y`$ stands for the hypercharge. The covariant derivative is given by

$`D_\mu =_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}Y𝒜_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\tau ^aB_\mu ^a.`$ (68)
The assignment for $`Y`$ is as follows:

$`Y\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\end{array}\right)`$ (75)
$`Y\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{3}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)`$ (82)
$`Y\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1\\ h_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1\\ h_2\end{array}\right).`$ (88)
The complete Lagrangian of the model in the confinement phase is given by:

$`_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }+\overline{l}_Li\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}l_L+\overline{q}_Li\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}q_L+\overline{e}_Ri\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}e_R`$
$`+\overline{u}_Ri\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}u_R+\overline{d}_Ri\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}d_R+G_e\overline{e}_R(\stackrel{~}{h}l_L)+G_d\overline{d}_R(\stackrel{~}{h}q_L)`$
$`+G_u\overline{u}_R(hq_L)+h.c.+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\mu h)^{}(D^\mu h){\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}hh^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(hh^{})^2,`$
where $`m^2>0`$ and

$`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu B_\nu ^a_\nu B_\mu ^a+gϵ^{abc}B_\mu ^bB_\nu ^c,`$ (131)
$`f_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu .`$
The $`U(1)`$ gauge group is an unbroken gauge group, like $`SU(2)_L`$. The hypercharge of the $`h`$ field is $`+1`$, and that of the $`h^{}`$ field is $`1`$, i.e. the members of the flavor group $`SU(2)_F`$ have different charge assignments. Thus the group $`SU(2)_F`$ is dynamically broken, and a mass splitting between the charged and neutral vector bosons arises. The neutral massive vector boson which is proportional to $`(\overline{h}D_\mu h)`$ and which is not a gauge boson couples to the gauge boson $`𝒜_\mu `$, and as a result these bosons are not mass eigenstates, but mixed states. The strength of this mixing depends on the internal structure of the massive bosons.

We shall like to emphasize that the $`B_\mu ^a`$ gauge bosons are as unphysical as the gluons are in QCD. The hyperphoton $`𝒜_\mu `$ is not the physical photon $`A_\mu `$ which is a mixture of $`𝒜_\mu `$ and of the bound state $`(\overline{h}D_\mu h)`$. The fundamental D-quarks do not have an electric charge but only a hypercharge. These hypercharges give a global hypercharge to the bound states, and one can see easily that a bound state like the electron has a global hypercharge and will thus couple to the physical photon, whereas a neutrino has a vanishing global hypercharge and thus will remain neutral with respect to the physical photon. So we deduce that QED is not a property of the microscopic world described by $`_c`$ but rather a property of the bound states constructed out of these fundamental fields. The theory in the confinement phase apparently makes no prediction concerning the strength of the coupling between the bound states and the electroweak bosons and the physical photon. This information can only be gained in the Higgs phase.

The mixing between the two states can be studied at the macroscopic scale, i.e. the theory of bound states, where one has

$`Z_\mu ^0`$ $`=`$ $`W_\mu ^3\mathrm{cos}\theta _W+𝒜_\mu \mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$
$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`W_\mu ^3\mathrm{sin}\theta _W+𝒜_\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta _W.`$ (132)
Here $`\theta _W`$ denotes the electroweak mixing angle, and $`A_\mu `$ denotes the photon field.

## 5 The weak mixing angle

In this section, we want to calculate the typical scale for the confinement of the $`W_\mu ^3`$-boson. In section 2, we have matched the expansion for the Higgs field to the standard model. Using this point of view based on the effective theory concept, we obtained a scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W=173.9`$ GeV for this boson. Here we shall consider a effective Lagrangian to simulate the effect of the $`SU(2)_L`$ confinement.

This Lagrangian was originally considered in an attempt to describe the weak interactions without using a gauge theory . This effective Lagrangian is given by

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{\mu \nu }^aW^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_W^2W_\mu ^aW^{a\mu }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda \left(F_{\mu \nu }W^{3\mu \nu }+W_{\mu \nu }^3F^{\mu \nu }\right)`$
where we have

$`W_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu W_\nu ^a_\nu W_\mu ^a,`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu .`$ (133)
The first term in the effective Lagrangian (5) describes the field of the hyperphoton, the second term three spin one bosons and the third term is a mass term which is identical for the three spin one bosons. In our case, the fourth term describes an effective mixing between $`W^3`$-boson and the hyperphoton.

The effective mixing angle of the Lagrangian given in equation (5) reads

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{e}{g}}\lambda .`$ (134)
Using the complementarity principle, we deduce that the mixing angle of the theory in the confinement phase has to be the weak mixing angle and therefore $`\lambda =\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$.

The diagram in figure 1 enables us to relate the mixing angle to a parameter of the standard model in the confinement phase, the typical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ for the confinement of the $`W^3`$-boson. For the annihilation of a $`W^3`$-boson into a hyperphoton we have the following relation

$`0|J_Y^\mu (0)|W^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^\mu }{\sqrt{2E_W}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{f_W}}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^\mu }{\sqrt{2E_W}}}m_WF_W,`$ (135)
where $`J_Y^\mu `$ is the hyper-current, $`F_W=m_W/f_W`$ is the decay constant of the $`W^3`$-boson, and $`ϵ^\mu `$ is its polarization. The energy of the boson is $`E_W`$ and the decay constant is defined as follows:

$`\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{e}{f_W}}.`$ (136)
On the other hand, this matrix element can be expressed using the wave function of the $`W^3`$-boson which is a $`p`$-wave

$`0|J_Y^\mu (0)|W^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^\mu }{\sqrt{2E_W}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_W}}}_r\varphi (0).`$ (137)
This leads to the following relation for the mixing angle

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \alpha }{m_W^5}}\left(_r\varphi (0)\right)^2,`$ (138)
where $`\alpha 1/128`$ at $`m_W`$ is the fine structure constant.

We shall now consider two different models for the wave function:

* Coulombic model.
We adopt the following ansatz for the radial wave function

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r_B}}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_B}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{2r_B}}\right),`$ (139)
where $`r_B`$ is the Bohr radius. Thus we obtain

$`r_B^1`$ $`=`$ $`m_W\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\right)^{1/5}.`$ (140)
If we define the typical scale for confinement as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W=r_B^1`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H=157`$ GeV.
* Three-dimensional harmonic oscillator.
The radial part of the wave function is defined as follows:

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{3/2}}{\pi ^{1/4}}}\beta r\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2r^2}{2}}\right),`$ (141)
where $`\beta =\sqrt{m_W\omega }`$, $`\omega `$ being the frequency of the oscillator. We identify the typical confinement scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ with the energy $`E=\left(n+\frac{3}{2}\right)\omega `$ corresponding to the quantum number of a $`p`$-wave i.e. $`n=1`$, and we obtain

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`m_W\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{64\alpha \pi ^{1/2}}}\right)^{2/5}`$ (142)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W=\frac{5}{2}\omega =182`$ GeV.

Although we have performed a non-relativistic calculation, we see that the values we find for the typical composite scale are in good agreement with the naive guess we made based on the concept of an effective theory.

In order to estimate the value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, we had to rely on the simple models, discussed above. However we should like to point out that $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ is not a free parameter in our approach but fixed by the confinement dynamics. Thus the mixing angle can in principle be calculated taking e.g. the three dimensional harmonic oscillator:

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{256}{375}}\sqrt{10\pi }\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_W}{m_W}}\right)^{5/2}.`$ (143)
We can insert the value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ obtained from the effective theory point of view in equation (143) and we obtain $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2056`$ which has to be compared to the experimental value $`(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)_{exp}=0.23124(24)`$. Of course this is a naive non-relativistic and model dependent calculation. Such a calculation could also be done by lattice methods but it remains to see whether this can be carried out in the future.

## 6 Deviations from the standard model

In this section we discuss possible deviations from the standard model. A possible deviation from the standard model could be the ratio of the Higgs boson mass to the $`W^3`$-boson mass. This ratio can take different values in the Higgs phase and in the confinement phase . Thus the mass of the Higgs boson allows to test which phase describes the electroweak interactions.

Another aspect is the number of physical states. Obviously the particle spectrum of the model in the confinement is much richer than in the standard model since many new $`SU(2)_L`$ bound states can be constructed. Especially the $`d`$-waves, $`D_{\mu \nu }^1`$ and $`D_{\mu \nu }^2`$ of the bound state of two scalar D-quarks can be constructed. These bound states have the following expansions:

$`D_{\mu \nu }^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{gF^2}}(\overline{h}[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]h)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)^2G_{\mu \nu }^3G_{\mu \nu }^3`$ (144)
$`D_{\mu \nu }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{gF^2}}(ϵ^{ij}h_i[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]h_j)=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{(1)}}{F}}\right)^2\left(G_{\mu \nu }^1+iG_{\mu \nu }^2\right)`$
$`\left(G_{\mu \nu }^1+iG_{\mu \nu }^2\right),`$
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ was defined in equation (131). The masses of such states could in principle be calculated using the lattice approach or at least related to the mass of the $`W^\pm `$-bosons. We also expect the appearance of bound states of the form $`ϵ^{ij}l_il_j`$, $`\overline{l}l`$, $`ϵ^{ij}q_iq_j`$ and $`\overline{q}q`$ or the “mixtures” of the kind $`\overline{l}q`$ and $`ϵ^{ij}l_iq_j`$. They have the following hypercharges

$`Y(ϵ^{ij}l_il_j)`$ $`=`$ $`2,Y(\overline{l}l)=0,Y(ϵ^{ij}q_iq_j)=2/3,Y(\overline{q}q)=0,`$ (145)
$`Y(ϵ^{ij}l_iq_j)`$ $`=`$ $`2/3,Y(\overline{l}q)=4/3.`$
We cannot assign QED charges to these bound states since they are not present in the Higgs phase. We expect also the existence of radial excitations of known particles like a $`Z^{}`$ but basically their couplings to the rest of the particle spectrum and masses are unknown. But, we do not expect a sizeable coupling of these excited states to the fermions. They would be coupled primarily to the $`W`$-bosons, which consist of the same scalar D-quarks. A sizeable effect “beyond the standard model” could be observed in the reaction $`W^++W^{}Z^{}W^++W^{}`$, a reaction which can be studied at the Tevatron and LHC colliders. The neutral $`d`$-wave state $`D_{\mu \nu }^1`$ discussed above could be found in the same reaction.

A major difference with composite models considered in the past is that we exclude four fermion interactions, which are setting strong constraints on composite models. The new particles, in our approach, should manifest themselves as radiative corrections to known processes. We should nevertheless keep in mind that not even the $`Z`$-boson contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon can be identified .

Let us return to the problem of quantum electrodynamics. As long as the $`SU(2)_L`$ confinement takes place we cannot introduce the charge operator

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`1/2(\tau ^3Y)`$ (146)
since it is not a singlet under $`SU(2)_L`$. But at very small distances, when the confinement scale is irrelevant, this operator becomes physical and in principle observable. We can rewrite the covariant derivative (68) using the mass eigenstate basis. Since the gauge symmetry is not broken we are not forced to do so, but we have the freedom to use this basis. We have

$`D_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{gg^{}}{2\sqrt{g^2+g^2}}}A_\mu (\tau ^3Y)i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}g(\tau ^+B_\mu ^++\tau ^{}B_\mu ^{})`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{g^2+g^2}}}Z_\mu \left(g^2\tau ^3+g^2Y\right),`$
with

$`\tau ^\pm =1/2(\tau ^1\pm i\tau ^2).`$ (148)
Thus the electric charges of the leptonic D-quarks, hadronic D-quarks and scalar D-quarks are

$`Q\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\end{array}\right)`$ (155)
$`Q\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{3}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)`$ (162)
$`Q\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1\\ h_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1\\ h_2\end{array}\right).`$ (169)
If one would be able to test the charge of an electron D-quark at very small distances, we would measure the right QED charge. We can then deduce that at low energies it is basically not possible to distinguish the two phases as the known particles are expected to behave in the same fashion as in the standard model, and the new excited bound states cannot be produced because they are too heavy. At intermediary energies one can expect the new bound states to contribute through quantum processes but at very small distances, the bound states will disappear, the D-quarks will become free, and they will have the usual charges as already discussed. The gauge bosons of the $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge group will also be liberated and take over the role of the electroweak bosons which were bound states. Especially the gauge boson $`B_\mu ^3`$ will mix with the hyperphoton, and it will become impossible to distinguish between the two phases.

A frequent problem with models avoiding the Higgs mechanism are flavor changing neutral currents. Our model can be extended to three families by introducing the following doublets in the model

$`l_i^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1^{(2)}\\ l_2^{(2)}\end{array}\right),l_i^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1^{(3)}\\ l_2^{(3)}\end{array}\right),q_i^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1^{(2)}\\ q_2^{(2)}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}q_i^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1^{(3)}\\ q_2^{(3)}\end{array}\right).`$ (178)
We can then identify the leptons and quarks of the second family in the following way

$`\nu _{\mu L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\overline{h}l^{(2)})=l_1^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}l_1^{(2)}l_1^{(2)}`$
$`\mu _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(ϵ^{ij}h_il_j^{(2)})=l_2^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}l_2^{(2)}l_2^{(2)}`$
$`c_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\overline{h}q^{(2)})=q_1^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}q_1^{(2)}q_1^{(2)}`$
$`s_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(ϵ^{ij}h_iq_j^{(2)})=q_2^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}q_2^{(2)}q_2^{(2)}.`$
The fermions of the third family are

$`\nu _{\tau L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\overline{h}l^{(3)})=l_1^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}l_1^{(3)}l_1^{(3)}`$
$`\tau _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{F}}(ϵ^{ij}h_il_j^{(3)})=l_2^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}l_2^{(3)}l_2^{(3)}`$
$`t_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\overline{h}q^{(3)})=q_1^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}q_1^{(3)}q_1^{(3)}`$
$`b_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(ϵ^{ij}h_iq_j^{(3)})=q_2^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}h_{(1)}q_2^{(3)}q_2^{(3)}.`$
The electroweak and Higgs bosons are defined in the same way as previously. The universality of the weak interactions is respected as the three families couple with the same strength to the electroweak bosons. Due to the complementarity between both phases of the model we do not expect new physical effects as for example flavor changing neutral currents. So this model reproduces all the phenomenological success of the standard model.

We are aware that the new effects we have discussed in this section could be forbidden or driven up to very high energies by some yet unknown selection rules. However this looks unlikely since it does not appear to be very natural. Another possibility is that these non-perturbative effects are also present, but hidden in the standard model Lagrangian in which case the complementarity would not break down.

## 7 Conclusions

We have considered a model based on the gauge group $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$. This model represents a viable alternative to the electroweak standard model. The basic assumption is that physical particles are singlets under $`SU(2)_L`$. The model allows a dynamical interpretation of the weak mixing angle which is related to a typical scale for the confinement of the $`W^3`$-boson. This is the main achievement of the model in the confinement phase. This scale can be calculated by means of simple wave functions. The result of this naive calculation agrees with the result expected from the effective theory point of view. In our approach, the weak mixing angle and therefore also the ratio $`m_Z/m_W`$ are calculable.

Some deviations from the standard model could be observed but any prediction is highly dependent on the details of our confining theory, whose non-perturbative effects are yet to be investigated. Lattice theory should be able to shed some light onto these questions.

If our interpretation is correct, all gauge theories describing the elementary interactions are based on exact gauge symmetries. This would restore the asymmetry between QCD and the standard model. Unless there are some unknown selection rules forbidding their presence, we expect a rich new spectrum of bound states which could appear at the scale of a few hundred GeV. If the confinement phase describes the electroweak interactions, the desert in the TeV region could be a blooming desert full of interesting new phenomena.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to E. Seiler for stimulating discussions concerning the question of complementarity. We shall also like to thank J. Jersak, A. Martin, V. Visnjic and P. Weisz for useful communications. Furthermore we are indebted to C.P. Korthals-Altes, J. Pati and G. ’t Hooft for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Evidence for Polarized Synchrotron Components in Radio-Optical Aligned Quasars

## 1 Introduction

The “Unified Scheme” for active galactic nuclei (AGN) has enjoyed remarkable success in explaining not only the spectroscopic and polarimetric properties of various classes of objects, but also their morphologies in the light of certain emission lines, the overall radio structure and spectra of quasars, and the existence of IR-luminous, but optically-faint AGN (e.g. Antonucci 1993; Cimatti et al. 1993; Capetti, Macchetto, & Lattanzi 1997; Hines et al. 1995). The idea relies on the presence of a nominally toroidal structure surrounding the central engine which obscures the compact object and broad-line region (BLR) for high-inclination sightlines. From such vantage points, the bright nuclear emission components are seen primarily in light which has become polarized by scattering off dust and/or electrons located above and below the polar openings of the torus. For these objects (e.g. Seyfert 2 galaxies, narrow-line radio galaxies, IRAS QSOs), extinction of the direct optical and near-IR continuum also increases the contrast of the emission from the more ubiquitous narrow-line region (NLR), earning their type-2 spectroscopic designation and resulting in extreme optical/far-IR colors.

By contrast, objects of type 1 are thought to be viewed through the toroidal hole, a perspective which provides the observer with a relatively unattenuated view of the central engine and BLR. Type-1 objects include the broad-line quasars, broad-line radio galaxies, and Seyfert 1 galaxies. When our sightline lies very near the axis of a relativistic jet emanating from the compact object, Doppler-boosted synchrotron emission from the jet dominates the spectrum and a highly variable and polarized blazar is observed. Though the model does not explain the essential difference between radio-loud and -quiet AGN, it successfully applies within each radio class.

Stockman, Angel, & Miley (1979) were the first to point out that the $`E`$-vector of optical polarization for quasars associated with double-lobe radio sources tends to be aligned with the radio source axis on the sky. This tendency toward “parallel” polarization was soon found to exist also among Seyfert 1 galaxies (Antonucci 1983) and radio galaxies (Antonucci 1982, 1984; Rudy et al. 1983), and to extend to radio structure at the milliarcsecond scale (Rusk & Seaquist 1985). Though interest in the radio-optical alignment was soon eclipsed by Antonucci’s discovery (1983; see also Antonucci & Miller 1985) of very strong perpendicular polarization in some type-2 Seyfert galaxies, the result of Stockman et al. (1979) was early evidence for aspect-dependent classification of AGN.

There is no doubt that the dominant polarizing mechanism for most type-2 objects is small-particle scattering. Spectra of polarized flux ($`P\times F_\lambda `$) often show broad permitted lines that are not evident in the total flux spectrum but are characteristic of a classical emission-line QSO. In addition, the polarized continuum occasionally exhibits the “3000 Å bump”, a pseudo-continuum from Fe II and Balmer free-bound emission arising within the BLR (Grandi 1981; Wills, Netzer, & Wills 1985). The perpendicularity between the optical polarization $`E`$-vector and radio morphology is simply a result of the scatterers lying along the same general direction from the central source as the plasmons. In contrast, the polarization properties of radio-loud, non-blazar, type-1 AGN are not well-studied. Overall, the polarization of these objects rarely exceeds 2% (Stockman, Moore, & Angel 1984), so the sources are difficult to study in detail. The interpretation of weak polarization is also more ambiguous, since synchrotron emission, scattering in an extended halo or accretion disk, or even partial extinction by a medium of aligned dust grains are all potentially viable mechanisms (e.g., Stockman et al. 1979; Antonucci 1984). Discrimination among these possibilities requires spectropolarimetry of sufficient quality to measure the polarization of the emission lines vs. the continuum and to compare the continuum shape in polarized flux with that in total flux. Such a study is justified by the potential for new, qualitative information on the structure of the inner regions of QSOs and possibly on the salient distinction between radio-loud and -quiet objects.

## 2 Observations and Object Selection

In this paper we present the results of linear spectropolarimetry of 8 double-lobed quasars from the original Stockman et al. (1979) list which show alignment between the axis of radio emission and optical polarization. The data were obtained using the Steward Observatory 2.3 m Bok telescope and CCD Spectropolarimeter (Schmidt, Stockman, & Smith 1992). Wavelength coverage generally spans a single order of the low-resolution grating, $`\lambda \lambda 40008000`$, however on occasion a second tilt was used to include an important emission line. The data typically consist of $`1020`$ observations from several epochs over the period $`19951999`$, each observation being the result of $``$20 min of integration in a $`QU`$ sequence of waveplate orientations. Entrance slits were $`3\mathrm{}4\mathrm{}`$ width $`\times `$ 51″ length, providing a spectral resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 12`$ Å and ample real estate for sky subtraction. Basic properties of the targets and a summary of continuum polarization values measured at each epoch are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Only PKS 0405$``$123 showed such weak polarization in the initial observation that accurate spectropolarimetry was impractical111A broadband measurement made with a filter polarimeter and included in Table 2 confirms that this low polarization persisted as late as 1999 Oct.. With that lone exception, the new spectropolarimetric results are broadly consistent with “white-light” and filtered measurements from the 1970’s and 1980’s (e.g., Stockman, Moore, & Angel 1984; Berriman et al. 1990; Webb et al. 1993). In the spectropolarimetric results, the maximum position angle difference between the optical polarization and radio axis on either arcsecond (as) or milliarcsecond (mas) scales is $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\theta |=28\mathrm{°}`$ (Table 3), so the new observations substantiate a long-term relationship between the two quantities.

For the 7 objects observed in detail, polarimetric variability was small, when present at all (see §4.2). Thus, the data for each object were coadded, weighting according to the statistical quality of each observation. The combined results are shown in Figures $`17`$, plotted as observed quantities vs. rest wavelength. Each figure portrays, from bottom to top, the total flux spectrum $`F_\lambda `$, the Stokes flux $`q^{}\times F_\lambda `$ for a coordinate system aligned with the overall position angle of polarization, the rotated Stokes parameter $`q^{}`$ in percent, and the electric-vector position angle $`\theta `$. For objects whose polarization position angles do not vary strongly with wavelength, such presentations are preferable to plots of the degree of polarization $`P`$ and polarized flux $`P\times F_\lambda `$ because they avoid having to apply statistical corrections for the positive bias of measurement errors on $`P`$. The final polarimetric signal-to-noise ratio for each object is $`q^{}/\sigma _q^{}=610`$ per 20 Å wide bin, which is somewhat broader than a spectral resolution element.

The sample was chosen primarily to be tractable with a 2.3 m telescope. Generally, sources are optically bright, $`V<17`$, and modestly polarized, $`P1\%`$. All lie above a galactic latitude of 40° except 4C 34.47 ($`b=32\mathrm{°}`$). In any case, the lack of measurable polarization in the emission lines in any object (§3) rules out a significant interstellar component due to aligned grains in either the Milky Way or quasar host galaxy. The targets have total (core + lobes) radio luminosities $`26\mathrm{log}(L_\nu (5\mathrm{GHz}))27`$ (W Hz-1) and core 5 GHz-to-optical flux ratios greater than 10 (Table 1). One of the most core-dominant of the radio sources, 4C 34.47, is also a known superluminal source (Barthel et al. 1989). Redshifts span the range $`0.20<z<0.62`$, so the H$`\beta `$+\[O III\] complex lies in the observed spectral range for all objects; lower-$`z`$ objects also provide H$`\alpha `$, and 3C 95 exhibits Mg II $`\lambda 2800`$. In general, the emission-line components are very prominent in total flux.

Because targets were selected from a list already known to be polarized and with an orientation related to the radio structure, our sample is not well-suited in isolation for statistical evaluation of polarization properties vs. the predictions of a particular model (e.g., the Unified Scheme). Instead, our goal is to examine what can be learned about the polarizing mechanism in the aligned objects and possibly about the central regions of radio-loud quasars. Comparisons with spectropolarimetric compilations of other AGN may be informative but relevant selection criteria should be kept in mind. For example, Cohen et al. (1999) presented observations of 13 low-$`z`$ radio galaxies. That sample contains 8 narrow-line objects whose nuclei are presumably highly obscured; 6 of these reveal broad lines in polarized flux. Of the 5 broad-line radio galaxies, one was chosen by Cohen et al. because other observations suggested that it was heavily obscured. The remainder show no tendency toward alignment between optical polarization and radio structure, some contain large starlight components in their optical continua, and only one exhibits a true quasar-like spectrum. More recently, Malkan (2000) has made a study of several low-polarization QSOs of a variety of types, including 3 radio-loud objects.

A few of the targets observed here have been studied with spectropolarimetric techniques by others. Antonucci (1988) presented data of Miller and Goodrich on 4C 34.47 and Ton 202, PKS 0405$``$123 was studied by Antonucci et al. (1996), and Malkan (2000) discusses 4C 09.72. In none of these results do the emission lines or 3000 Å bump appear in polarized light, though the previous data on 3C 34.47 and Ton 202 are of low signal-to-noise ratio and the polarization of PKS 0405$``$123 was very weak also when studied by Antonucci ($`199091`$; $`P0.04`$%).

## 3 Spectra in Polarized Light

From inspection of Figures $`17`$, it is clear that the following characteristics are universal among the objects studied:

1. a position angle of polarization that is essentially constant with wavelength,
2. a degree of polarization222More accurately, the rotated Stokes parameter $`q^{}`$ (%) that is diminished at the locations of broad and narrow emission lines, and
3. a reduction in polarization in the interval occupied by the 3000 Å bump: 2500 Å $`\lambda _{\mathrm{em}}`$ 5000 Å.

Malkan (2000) notes that the combination of all 3 of the above trends is found only in the radio-loud objects he studied. The results contradict a claim of Stockman et al. (1984) that the degree of polarization in a broad blue filtered bandpass generally exceeds that measured in the red. However, Stockman et al. point out that definite wavelength dependence was detected in only 2 of their objects. One is the $`z=2.23`$, radio-quiet Broad Absorption Line QSO 1246$``$057 (e.g., Schmidt & Hines 1998), where the optical band examines a region well short of the 3000 Å bump. Evidence among the remainder of their sample is largely statistical in nature owing to large measurement uncertainties. Of the 4 objects which are in common with our spectropolarimetric sample, only Ton 202 showed a blue-red polarization difference exceeding the combined 1$`\sigma `$ error bar: in that case, $`P_B<P_R`$, as we find.

Trends 2) and 3) above produce a spectrum of Stokes flux $`q^{}\times F_\lambda `$ which increases smoothly toward shorter wavelengths, showing no evidence of line emission. The confidence which can be placed on the claim of unpolarized lines varies from object to object according to the degree of polarization, data quality, and emission-line strength. We have used simple spectral synthesis techniques to estimate the fraction of the observed broad-line flux, $`f_p`$, which could share the polarization characteristics of the continuum, gauging the appearance of a polarized emission line in the models by eye. Because of the difficulty of setting a “continuum” level beneath the 3000 Å bump, we confine this test to the most prominent broad emission line in the spectrum: H$`\alpha `$, H$`\beta `$, or Mg II $`\lambda 2800`$, as appropriate. The results are listed in Table 4 as 3$`\sigma `$ upper limits to the polarized fraction of these features. Limits range from $`f_p<0.4`$ for the H$`\alpha `$ line of 4C 34.47 to $`f_p<1.5`$ for the weak H$`\beta `$ feature in 4C 09.72. Four of the 7 targets yield 3$`\sigma `$ upper limits so low that only a portion of the line could be polarized like the continuum. This conclusion contrasts sharply with typical polarized type 2 sources, where broad lines generally appear only in polarized light, $`f_p1`$.

It should be pointed out that the above-quoted confidence levels are quite conservative: Several unpolarized emission features are present in most spectra, and statistical limits for the ensemble would be tighter than for the single brightest line. Furthermore, since the 3000 Å bump is thought to arise largely as gaseous emission within the BLR, the observed decline in polarization within the bump in each object is strong evidence for an unpolarized broad-line component. As an aside, we point out that many of the objects have sufficiently bright \[O III\] $`\lambda \lambda `$4959, 5007 lines to rule out the possibility that a significant portion of the narrow-line emission shares the polarization of the continuum.

Our results demonstrate that the polarization of the optical/radio aligned quasars studied here is a property solely of the continuum which underlies 3000 Å bump and is not shared by the emission lines. We have characterized the shape of this smoothly rising polarized continuum by a best-fit power law in Stokes flux ($`q^{}\times F_\nu )\nu ^\alpha `$. The resulting spectral indices $`\alpha `$ are listed in Table 4.

## 4 The Polarizing Mechanism and Structure of the Nucleus

The results presented above lead to several general conclusions regarding the polarizing mechanism in these radio-optical aligned quasars:

1. Each object is dominated by a single polarizing mechanism.
2. This mechanism acts entirely, or in large part, on the continuum of the object. If scattering is involved, the particles cannot lie substantially outside either of the emission-line regions. Electrons are possible scatterers, but considering that the BLR in objects of this luminosity may be as large as 1 pc in radius (Kaspi et al. 2000), dust particles may also be viable if the grains are entrained in a wind near the condensation radius (Kartje 1995).
3. The fact that the polarizing mechanism is aware of the radio axis on pc through Mpc scales implicates an origin that is related to the collimation of, or radiation by, the particle beam: i.e. the accretion disk or emission from the jet itself. These two alternatives are discussed in detail below.

### 4.1 A Scattering Disk?

It is popular to interpret the “big blue bump” which dominates the optical/UV portion of the spectral energy distribution of a typical AGN as emission from an accretion disk that surrounds the compact object. Though the shape of this bump is not a power-law over long spectral baselines, Francis et al. (1991) measured optical-near UV continuum slopes for a large number of radio-loud and -quiet QSOs, after correcting for the contributions of the Balmer-continuum and Fe II emission. The resulting histogram reveals that the great bulk of the objects falls in the range $`1.0<\alpha <+0.3`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the spectral index $`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$. It can be seen from comparison with Table 4 that this range also encompasses all of the slopes measured for the polarized flux spectra of the radio-optical aligned quasars studied here. The continuum shapes of these objects are therefore consistent with a spectrally-neutral polarizing mechanism applied to the light of the big blue bump.

Unfortunately, actual models of the polarization produced by physically-thin accretion disks are not as categoric (Koratkar & Blaes 1999; Koratkar et al. 1995; Antonucci et al. 1996). Briefly, simple optically-thick disk models imply a high opacity due to electron scattering, hence a substantial polarization when viewed at sufficiently large inclination, $`i45\mathrm{°}`$. This prediction is modified in spectral regions where the absorption opacity is also high, so strong polarimetric signatures are expected near bound-free edges. Spectropolarimetric observations have been made of a number of polarized QSOs in the region around the Lyman edge (e.g. Koratkar et al. 1995, 1998; Antonucci et al. 1996; Schmidt & Hines 1998). The data fail to show either the strong predicted continuum polarizations or the expected discontinuities. Moreover, scattering in an optically-thick, physically-thin disk results in a polarization $`E`$-vector which is perpendicular to the disk axis; the latter is thought to approximately coincide with the radio axis. This relationship is, of course, opposite to the trend observed among the radio-optical aligned quasars. Thus, simple thin disks seem to be ruled out on a number of accounts, a conclusion which seemed inevitable even in 1986 (Antonucci 1988). Suggested remedies to the situation include physically thick disks, winds, and additional scattering structures (see, e.g., Kartje 1995). Unfortunately, such complications reduce the predictability of models and as a result the utility of polarimetry as a diagnostic of the central structure of the nucleus.

A discussion of scattering disks in AGN would be incomplete without mentioning the case of OI 287. This object is an unusually strong narrow-line source333Indeed, Antonucci et al. (1993) term it a Quasar 2. whose polarization is extremely high ($`P8\%`$), constant over time, and shows a position angle that is precisely aligned with the double-lobed radio structure (Rudy & Schmidt 1988). Like the radio-optical aligned quasars, the narrow emission lines are unpolarized. However, in OI 287 broad H$`\beta `$ and H$`\gamma `$ are evident in polarized light (Goodrich & Miller 1988; see also Antonucci, Kinney, & Hurt 1993), a fact which motivated a model involving obscuration and scattering of light originating in the central source and BLR by a physically (and optically?) thin disk that is viewed very nearly edge-on. While OI 287 demonstrates the feasibility of thin scattering disks resulting in strong parallel polarizations, its overwhelming narrow-line spectrum and polarized broad lines indicate that the source is viewed at a high inclination and may well be the product of a polarizing mechanism unrelated to that dominating the objects studied here.

### 4.2 Synchrotron Alternatives

Synchrotron emission is a well-known source of optical continuum and polarization in certain classes of AGN. It originates both from resolved, kpc-scale jet features such as those which emanate from several radio-loud AGN, and from variable components in the spectral energy distributions of blazars. The latter presumably also arise in small-scale jet structures which in the Unified Scheme (e.g. Antonucci 1993) are Doppler-boosted when a relativistic particle beam is viewed from near the axis of ejection. Recall that in the Unified Scheme, broad-line quasars are seen from a sufficiently small inclination that the torus does not intercept sightlines to the nucleus ($`i45\mathrm{°}`$), so a weak optical synchrotron component from the relativistic jet would not be a great surprise.

With the exception of the enormous jet of 3C 273, the resolved optical jets associated with local AGN have projected lengths of a few kpc (e.g., Scarpa et al. 1999). At a distance typical of the sources in Table 1, they would subtend $`<`$1″ on the sky and be very difficult to discern against the bright nuclear source. Both well-studied local examples – M87 and 3C 273 – show superluminal motion (Biretta & Meisenheimer 1993; Unwin et al. 1985 and references therein) and have been mapped at $``$1″ resolution in spectral index and polarization (Perlman et al. 1999; Conway & Röser 1993). The optical jets are not only associated with radio counterparts but are aligned with radio structure on the mas scale as well as with the giant lobes. The jets of both M87 and 3C 273 exhibit optical $`E`$-vectors of polarization that are generally perpendicular to the projected jet axes in the inner regions ($`B`$-fields parallel to the jets), flipping by $``$90° in knots that are presumed to be the sites of shocks. As a result, the polarization of each jet summed over its entire length is modest ($`P10`$%). Finally, optical spectral indices measured for the local jet sources are: M87, $`\alpha 0.65`$ independent of location (Biretta & Meisenheimer 1993) and 3C 273, $`1.7<\alpha <0.8`$ (Conway & Röser 1993). Radio-optical spectral indices of jets associated with PKS 0521$``$365, 3C 371, and PKS 2201+044 measure $`\alpha _{\mathrm{RO}}0.8`$ (Scarpa et al. 1999). These slopes compare well with the spectral indices of polarized flux for the targets studied here ($`1.1\alpha 0.8`$), except for 4C 34.47 ($`\alpha +0.1`$; Figure 6 and Table 4).

The difficulty with the hypothesis that kpc-scale jets are the origin of polarization in the radio-optical aligned quasars is the low optical luminosities of known examples. Monochromatic values at $`V`$ summed over the lengths of the above-mentioned jets range from $`L_{5500}6\times 10^{35}`$ ergs s-1 Å-1 for PKS 2201+044 to $``$$`7\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1 Å-1 for 3C 273444Cosmological parameters $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=\frac{1}{2}`$ are assumed.. These must be compared with the optical luminosity for a typical quasar from our sample ($`V16`$, $`z0.35`$) of $``$1042 ergs s-1 Å-1. Indeed, if the jet of 3C 273 were unresolved from the central source, it would give rise to a net optical polarization for the quasar of $`P<0.01`$%. Of course, it is possible that our selection of the most highly polarized quasars has also identified sources with unusually bright or polarized optical jets. However, the structures would have to be at least an order of magnitude more luminous than any local example and be uniformly polarized near the synchrotron maximum of $`P70`$% to yield the levels of polarization listed in Table 2.

More promising is the possibility of synchrotron emission from a misdirected blazar core component or an intrinsically weak end-on blazar. Except for 4C 34.47, the spectral indices of polarized flux of the radio-optical aligned quasars are consistent with the optical-near UV range measured for blazars (e.g. Landau et al. 1986), and a synchrotron component with moderately strong polarization ($`P10\%`$) that provides $``$10% of the total continuum flux would account for the observed levels of polarization. The canonical benchmark for a highly-polarized quasar has been that the broadband optical polarization exceed $`P=3\%`$ (e.g. Moore & Stockman 1981; Stockman et al. 1984; Wills et al. 1992). This criterion was based on the bimodal distribution of polarization observed among survey QSOs (Stockman 1978), a fact that suggested different polarizing mechanisms dominate in the two regimes. While it is true that quasars exceeding the 3% limit are very likely to show blazar-like properties, it is quite possible – indeed probable – that some weakly-polarized objects also contain feeble synchrotron components. Remarkably, the best example of a miniblazar is found in the prototypical emission-line quasar 3C 273 (Impey, Malkan, & Tapia 1989; Wills 1989). Highly variable in polarization but generally showing $`P<0.5`$% at optical wavelengths, 3C 273 occasionally exhibits “flares” when the $`I`$-band polarization reaches 2% (Courvoisier et al. 1988; Impey et al. 1989; de Diego et al. 1992). Dilution by the 3000 Å and big blue bumps cause the degree of polarization to decline toward the blue and the emission lines are measured to be patently unpolarized (Smith, Schmidt, & Allen 1993; de Diego et al. 1992). From the same observations, it was found that the spectrum of polarized flux in the optical-UV is rather steep, $`\alpha <1.5`$, and variable. Though the polarization position angle has been measured to vary through a range of at least 120°, values tend to cluster around a mean of $`\theta 60\mathrm{°}`$ (Impey et al. 1989), close to the $`\theta =43\mathrm{°}`$ orientation of the resolved jet and radio lobes. Thus, 3C 273 could well be classified as a quasar that shows alignment between its optical polarization and radio structure. A lower-luminosity analog is the type-1 Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151, which contains a variable continuum component that has been studied extensively throughout the electromagnetic spectrum and whose optical polarization lies within $``$10° of the axis of the two-sided arcsecond-scale radio jet (e.g., Schmidt & Miller 1980; Pedlar et al. 1993).

The classic test for blazar activity is variability. The polarimetric data available to us (Stockman et al. 1984; Webb et al. 1993) coupled with the observations summarized in Table 2 provide 5$``$10 epochs of broadband measurements for each object in our sample. The data span a total time base of typically 20 yr and sample intervals of about a month to a decade. A simple $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of the measurements uncovers a few interesting cases. Foremost is the aforementioned PKS 0405$``$12, which was found to have $`P0.50`$% on two occasions by Stockman et al. (1984) but has always been measured at $`<`$0.30% since. The position angle of polarization, which is probably a more robust indicator since it is not as sensitive to differences in waveband or to variable dilution, shows values for this quasar that range over nearly the entire compass. Even in 1978$``$80, when the source was comparatively strongly polarized, a range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =24\mathrm{°}`$ was measured. Unfortunately, PKS 0405$``$12 has been so weakly polarized of late that accurate spectropolarimetry has been impossible (see also Antonucci et al. 1996).

Three other targets from our sample show some evidence for polarimetric variability. The $`\chi ^2`$ index for the position angle measurements of Ton 202, 4C 37.43, and 4C 09.72 are 35, 23, 23 for 9, 4, 6 degrees of freedom, respectively, corresponding to probabilities of chance occurrence of $`10^410^3`$. The range of variation is not great, amounting to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 30`$° for 4C 09.72 and 4C 37.43 and $``$20° for Ton 202. However, these cases are unlikely to be statistical flukes, since measurements for B2 1208+32 and 4C 34.47, acquired to similar accuracy with the same instruments and over similar baselines, cover a total span in $`\theta `$ of just 12° and 8°, respectively, and yield $`\chi _\theta ^2=3`$ for 6 degrees of freedom for each object. Unfortunately, the detection of variability requires high relative precision in the measurements, and available data for these quasars are not of uniformly high quality. If 3C 273 were not virtually on our doorstep, it is likely that its miniblazar source would remain undiscovered even today.

While polarimetric variability may be a sufficient condition for identifying the synchrotron mechanism, it may not be necessary. Even the most active blazars often exhibit “preferred” polarization position angles in extensive monitoring campaigns (e.g. Angel et al. 1978), suggesting a systemic axis possibly associated with that of the accretion disk. The synchrotron components proposed here would be much more stable than those of classical blazars, but this is qualitatively consistent with jets viewed at larger angles to the ejection axis. A strong link between the existence of a beamed optical component and core-dominant radio structure is well-established (e.g. Impey & Tapia 1988; Wills et al. 1992), and strong optical polarization is almost always seen in superluminal sources. It is therefore interesting that the most core-dominant of our targets, 4C 34.47, with $`\mathrm{log}(F_{\mathrm{core}}/F_{\mathrm{tot}})0.3`$, lies in the range where a majority of sources would show high polarization (Impey et al. 1989). 4C 34.47 has also shown superluminal motion with the rather modest apparent speed of $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}3`$ (Barthel et al. 1989). The projected expansion axis was oriented at $`\theta =167\mathrm{°}`$, very nearly aligned with the large-scale structure and only 19° from the optical polarization position angle. A simple beaming model suggests that the jet lies within 44° of the line of sight. Once again we draw a parallel to 3C 273, which is a superluminal source showing $`5\beta _{\mathrm{app}}8`$ and a corresponding viewing angle of $`<`$20° (Unwin et al. 1985). On the other hand, the unusually flat spectral index of polarized flux measured for 4C 34.47 would require a miniblazar source of unprecedented properties – one with a remarkably flat synchrotron spectrum and/or strong intrinsic wavelength dependence to its polarization.

## 5 Discussion

The preceding sections present modest evidence that the optical polarization of radio quasars may be due largely to synchrotron emission from misdirected or intrinsically weak blazar core components. Because this hypothesis implies the presence of an exposed relativistic jet, and such jets are presumably absent in radio-quiet objects, it might be expected that radio quasars would be over-represented among AGN with small but significant polarization in large-scale surveys. Of course, this implies equality between the classes with respect to other variables (dust content, orientation, starlight fraction, etc.). In their statistical analysis of the polarization of Palomar-Green (PG) QSOs, Berriman et al. (1990) discriminated explicitly according to radio properties. Their Figure 3 indeed shows that a significantly larger fraction (5:17) of radio-loud objects (those with $`F_\nu (5\mathrm{GHz})/\mathrm{F}_\nu (\mathrm{opt})>25`$) are found with $`P>1`$% than for the radio-quiet sample (9:80). Four of the radio-luminous PG sources are spectropolarimetric targets studied here. However, Berriman et al.’s breakdown according to radio core dominance showed no correlation within either the radio-loud or -quiet samples, and a major conclusion of that paper was the general lack of evidence for synchrotron components in the sources studied. The techniques applied by Berriman et al. (1990) were effective at discriminating against highly polarized AGN of either the scattering or blazar variety, but since the PG catalog is derived from optical selection criteria, the radio-loud subsample is small. The criteria used – polarimetric variability and the dependence of $`P`$(%) on radio core dominance and optical color – were inefficient at identifying weak nonthermal components when the observable itself was known to a typical accuracy of only $`\sigma _P0.2`$% ($`P/\sigma _P5`$). Indeed, the prototype miniblazar, 3C 273, fails to stand out in any of the diagnostic tests made by Berriman et al., despite the fact that it is a particularly bright and easily measured member of the PG catalog. The weak polarization that is observed at wavelengths as long as 2 $`\mu `$m in 3C 273 as well as for 3 of the spectropolarimetric targets studied here (Sitko & Zhu 1991) indicates that the putative synchrotron components would also be minor contributors to the observed flux in the infrared. Unfortunately, none of the sources studied here were detected by IRAS, but they would make interesting SIRTF targets. Detailed spectral energy distributions, plus comprehensive polarimetric monitoring and additional investigations of the type carried out here, may be required to confirm the existence and prevalence of synchrotron components as significant sources to the optical continua of quasars.

Special thanks go to D. Hines, M. Malkan, and the referee, R. Antonucci, for illuminating discussions and critical readings of the manuscript. Support for this work was provided by NSF grants AST 91-14087 and AST 97-30792 and by the Director of KPNO.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this review we describe the current-voltage spectroscopy of superconductors which, in contrast to the tunneling spectroscopy, considers contacts with direct conductivity, without any barrier. These contacts are usually called point contacts as their lateral dimension should be smaller than some microscopic lengths such as the coherence length in superconductors and the inelastic mean free path of conduction electrons in normal metals. Some of 3-dimensional metallic constrictions are schematically depicted in Fig.1. A shorted thin-film tunneling junction (a) was historically the first structure in which the point-contact spectroscopy was discovered . A much more sophisticated thin-film structure is displayed in (b) where the tiny controlled orifice was made in the insulating diaphragm of Si3N4 by means of ion-beam nanolithography . Point-contacts with bulk electrodes are shown in Fig1 (c-e) for different geometries. The simplest are the pressure-type contacts in which two sharp edges (c)  or a needle and an anvil (d)  are forced to touch each other gently. Most point-contact spectroscopic studies were made just with these very simple experimental devices. The mechanically controlled break-junction (MCB) (Fig.1 (e)) gives an experimentalist new advantages . A small rode of a metal 1 is glued by the Staycast varnish 3 to the bending beam 4. The latter can be bent by a piezo driver 5 so that the notch 2 at the centre of the sample becomes stretched and the cross-section area of the constriction is gradually decreased. This device allows us to study the contact properties as a function of constriction size.

In this review we do not concern the so-called Andreev-reflection spectroscopy of superconducting energy gap. The reader can find this in Refs.  and later extensions . Our focus will be on the above-gap-energies where one could expect nonlinearities caused by the electron-boson interactions responsible for the formation of Cooper pairs. The problem unsolved yet is that in standard superconductors (lead, tin, Nb3Sn and many others) the above-gap nonlinearities give the evidence about the electron-phonon-interaction mechanism of Cooper pairing , whilst the tunnel junctions of unconventional superconductors (high-Tc’s, heavy fermions, organic superconductors, etc.) do not show any noticeable nonlinearities for energies larger than the superconductor energy gap  (albeit see Ref.). On the contrary, the point contacts do manifest strong nonlinearities at above-gap energies which in many cases correlate with the boson density of states known, for instance, from neutron study .

We thus think that the study of nonlinearities of point contacts is the alternative way of investigating the spectral functions of the electron-boson interaction which in many cases is more productive and simpler than tunneling.

## 2 Point-contact spectroscopy in the normal state

First, we consider the point-contact spectroscopy (PCS) of electron-boson interaction (EBI) in the normal state . Many superconductors can be driven into the normal state by magnetic field, and the PCS theory is more fundamental and transparent in this case. As a model for 3D constrictions, we consider a circular channel of length $`L`$ and diameter $`d`$ connecting two bulk metallic half-spaces (Fig.2). If $`Ld`$, we have an orifice in nontransparent infinitely thin partition, while for the opposite case ($`Ld`$) a one-dimensional channel appears. Since contact sizes $`L,d`$ are much less than the mean free path of conduction electrons e- the latter move through the constriction ballistically on applying the voltage bias $`eV`$. The resistance of such a ballistic contact was first derived by Sharvin  and is equal to

$$R_{Sh}=R_q\left(\frac{16}{d^2k_F^2}\right);R_q=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{e^2}12.9𝚔\mathrm{\Omega }$$

Suppose that there are some seldom elastic scatterings off static defects or impurities ($``$) or inelastic processes with emission phonons and other quasiparticles shown in Fig.2 as a wavy line with momenta $`q`$ . Let us call this regime quasi-ballistic. The nonequilibrium distribution function in the momentum space consists, like in the ballistic regime, of two spherical segments which are displaced in energy by $`eV`$ and which have the form of two semispheres at the central cross-section of the constriction . At low temperatures we can neglect the smearing of the Fermi edge. Then, the energy conservation sets a sharp threshold $`\mathrm{}\omega eV`$ on the quasiparticles which can be emitted by the inelastic transition of conduction electron with momenta $`p`$ to $`p^{^{}}`$. This backscattering processes create opposite current which depends strongly on the bias because of the energy dependence of the quasiparticle density of states and matrix element of EBI. This current is the basis of PCS. To be complete, we must note that in some cases the elastic scattering can also depend on the energy like, for instance, the scattering off the paramagnetic impurities (in Fig.2 these are shown with $``$) due to the Kondo effect or to two-level systems.

In the quasi-ballistic regime $`\left(l>\mathrm{max}\{d,L\}\right)`$ the differential resistance of the point contact is equal to

$`R(eV)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{Sh}+\mathrm{\Delta }R(eV);\text{ where }\mathrm{\Delta }R(eV)/R_{Sh}=\left(8/6\pi \right)[d/l_i(eV)].`$
For the second derivative of the current-voltage characteristic, which is usually called the point-contact spectrum, we obtain at $`T0`$ a simple relation :

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}R(eV)}{d(eV)}=\frac{8}{3}\frac{ed}{\mathrm{}v_F}g_{PC}(eV)$$
(1)
where g$`{}_{PC}{}^{}(eV)`$ is the transport EBI function which in many cases appears to be the electron-phonon-interaction (EPI) spectral function similar to the Eliashberg EPI function . The point-contact EPI function can be expressed as $`g_{PC}(\omega )=\alpha _{PC}^2(\omega )F(\omega )`$, where $`\alpha _{PC}^2(\omega )`$ is the averaged electron-phonon matrix element with kinematic restrictions imposed by the point contact geometry and $`F(\omega )`$ is the phonon density of states. Thus, we see that PCS allows direct recording of the transport version of EBI (EPI) spectral function which is responsible for the formation of Cooper pairs in superconductors. We show here only one example for tin although many pure metals, alloys and compounds have already been studied by means of PCS . In Fig.3 (upper panel) the directly recorded PC spectrum of tin is shown by a solid line which is compared with the EPI spectral function (dots) reconstructed from the Eliashberg integral equations by means of the Rowell-McMillan procedure from the superconducting tunneling experiment. Both curve are smeared by the PCS resolution which is shown by the horizontal segment on the graph and which is equal to

$$\delta (eV)=\sqrt{(5.44k_FT)^2+(1.72eV_1)^2}.$$

The PCS resolution depends on the temperature $`T`$ and modulation voltage $`V_1`$ which is used for recording the second derivative of current-voltage characteristic with a lock-in technique.

For symmetrical heterocontacts (point contact with dissimilar electrodes), the PC spectrum at $`T0`$ takes the form:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}R(eV)}{d(eV)}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{ed}{\mathrm{}}\left\{\frac{g_{PC}^{(1)}(eV)}{v_F^{(1)}}+\frac{g_{PC}^{(2)}(eV)}{v_F^{(2)}}\right\}$$
(2)
where the superscript $`(i)`$ refers to particular metal. This formula is used for a S-c-N contact.

The heavy elastic scattering around the contact is not necessarily detrimental to PCS as long as the energy relaxation length remains much larger than the contact size:

$$d\sqrt{l_il_e}.$$

In the case of diffusive movement of charge carriers through the contact $`\left(l_ed\right)`$, the contact size $`d`$ in formula (1) should be replaced by the elastic mean free path $`l_e.`$ The interpolation curve of the spectrum intensity is shown on the lower panel of Fig.3 . It can be used for estimation of $`l_e`$ inside the contact by measuring the intensity of the PC spectrum. This is important since during making a contact one could introduced a lot of defects into the contact region.

## 3 Excess current: dependence on purity

If one or two of the electrodes of a point contact become superconducting, the excess current emerges, which is superimposed on top of the normal state current. The mechanism is called the Andreev transformation and is as follows: a quasiparticle coming through the constriction has a certain probability to find another electron to form a Cooper pair in the superconducting electrode. This process leads to reflection of quasiparticles which have opposite signs of charge and velocity in the normal metal (in case of S-c-N junction) but the same excitation energy . For biases larger than gap energy this current is constant if strong-coupling, inelastic and nonequilibrium processes are disregarded. Below we consider all of them, but now let us focus on the undisturbed excess current which spreads not too far from the gap region. In The IVC of S-c-S tin junction is plotted in Fig.4 (upper panel) . The normal-state zero-bias resistance is compensated by a bridge circuit, hence the deflection of the real IVC in the normal state from the Ohmic behaviour is shown by curve 2. Curve 1 presents the superconducting state of the same contact ($`H=0`$). The critical (Josephson) current is clearly visible at $`V=0`$, and a small dip is seen at $`eV=2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This is because the small barrier appears at the interface between the electrodes due to introduced inhomogeneities while making the contact. The difference between curves 1 and 2 presents the excess current for biases greater than $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is seen to be approximately constant up to the energies near 5 meV. We shall discuss the nonlinearities of excess current

$$I_{exc}(V)=I_{exc,0}+\delta I_{exc}(V)$$
(3)
later on and now concentrate on the dependence of $`I_{exc,0}`$ on purity of the metal. Here we have to consider the purity inside the constriction region which could be quite different from that of the bulk. As a criterion of purity, we may take the maximum intensity of PC spectra which depends on the elastic mean free path averaged over the contact region, as shown by the curve in Fig.3 (lower panel). The dependence of $`I_{exc,0}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }/eR_0`$ units is shown in the lower panel of Fig.4 as a function of $`g_{PC}^{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`g_{PC}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the value of the PC spectrum at the bias around 15 meV (see Fig.3 (upper panel)). $`I_{exc,0}`$ starts approximately from $`1.47`$ for dirty contacts (i. e. for small $`g_{PC}^{\mathrm{max}}`$), as was predicted theoretically by Artemenko, Volkov and Zaitsev (AVZ) , and rises with $`g_{PC}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ up to the value predicted by Zaitsev and BTK  for clean contact111For a S-c-N contact the excess current is equal to half of the theoretical values shown in Fig.4 (lower panel).. In Fig.4 (lower panel) we show this ultimate value at $`g_{PC}^{\mathrm{max}}=0.41`$ taken from Ref., as a dot in a circle. From the graph $`g_{PC}/g_{PC}^{\mathrm{max}}(l_e/d)`$ of Fig.3 (lower panel) we find that $`l_e/d0.5`$ is quite sufficient to transform a clean S-c-S junction into a dirty one. On the other hand, the BTK theory dealing with clean junctions gives the AVZ-dirty value for $`I_{exc,0}`$ at the barrier parameter Z$`0.5`$ and, what is the most strange, the BTK-fitting leads to approximately the same Z for large diversity of materials, including high-Tc , heavy fermions and conventional superconductors. One might suspect that application of the clean BTK procedure to dirty junctions gives the same Z$`0.5`$ value irrespective of the kind of material.

The parallel study of excess current and intensity of PC spectra allows one to conclude whether the impurities are homogeneously distributed or they are located as a thin barrier at the interface between the electrodes. Indeed, the relative intensity of PC spectra does not saturate for $`l_e/d1`$ being proportional to $`l_e/d`$ , while the excess current does. The same is true when we consider the Z-parameter, instead of the excess current, while fitting the IVC by the BTK theory.

## 4 Elastic contribution to excess current

Further on we consider S-c-N junctions which are simpler to interpret due to the absence of the Josephson effect. To be more definite, we restrict ourselves to the electron-phonon interaction. According to Refs., one can write the IVC in the superconducting state as

$$I(V)=V/R_0\delta I_{ph}^N(V)+I_{exc}(V)$$
(4)
where $`\delta I_{ph}^N(V)`$ is the backscattering current in the normal state whose second derivative is given by Eq.(2) and $`I_{exc}(V)`$ is equal to Eq.(3). The order of magnitude of $`\delta I_{ph}^N(V)`$ is $`I(V)\times \left(d/l_{in}\right)`$. The voltage dependent part of $`\delta I_{exc}(V)`$ can be decomposed in elastic and inelastic parts:

$$\delta I_{exc}(V)=\delta I_{exc}^{el}(V)+\delta I_{exc}^{in}(V)$$

Correspondingly, the order of magnitude of the $`\delta I_{exc}^{el}(V)`$ and $`\delta I_{exc}^{in}(V)`$ terms amounts to

$$I_{exc,0}\times (\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}\omega _{ph})\text{ and }I_{exc,0}\times (d/l_{in})\text{ where }I_{exc,0}\mathrm{\Delta }/eR_0.$$
(5)
Let us consider the elastic component which is essential for strong coupling superconductors when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not much less than $`\omega _{ph}`$. Fig.5 shows the experimental second derivatives of IVC for lead in the superconducting state of Pb-Ru and Pb-Os point contacts (curves 2 and 4, respectively). Normal metals Ru and Os were chosen since their phonon density of states can be neglected in the energy range where Pb has the highest intensity . The normal state EPI PC spectrum for contact 2 is shown as dotted curve 3 on the same ordinate scale like that for the superconducting state (curve 2). It is clearly seen that in the superconducting state the phonon peaks are shifted to the higher energies roughly by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(Pb)$``$1.3 mV. Moreover, the intensity of the peaks is larger than that in the normal state. Importantly, the phonon peaks for noticeably dirtier contact (curve 4) are not much smaller, as could be expected from the measurements of EPI-PC-spectrum intensity in the normal state (not shown). These properties qualitatively contradict the theoretical predictions  if only the inelastic processes are taken into account.

Let us compare quantitatively the spectra for a clean contact (curve 2) with the predictions of Ref. which takes into account the strong-coupling effect of the superconducting energy gap dependence on energy. For the ballistic S-c-N junction with a strong-coupling superconductor the theory gives the expression of the first derivative of IVC:

$$\left\{\frac{dI}{dV}(eV)\right\}_{ScN}=\frac{1}{R_0}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(eV)}{eV+\left[\left(eV\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(eV)\right]^{1/2}}\right\}$$

for the total differential conductance at $`T=0`$. The derivative of this curve is displayed as curve 1 in Fig.5 where we used the strong-coupling gap versus energy dependence for lead determined by tunneling spectroscopy . The smooth weak-coupling BCS background (corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(eV)=const`$) is shown as a dashed line superimposed on curve 1. The experimental characteristic (curve 2) agrees reasonably well with theoretical predictions (curve 1) both in shape and in amplitude. The latter can be estimated by the deflection from the smooth background. The total order of magnitude of the elastic correction to the conductance amounts to $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(eV)/\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}\right]^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(eV)\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}`$, just as in the tunneling spectroscopy of superconductor. Since the elastic term of excess current $`\delta I_{exc}^{el}(V)`$ does not depend on the contact diameter $`d`$ (5), it can be higher than the inelastic contribution $`\delta I_{exc}^{in}(V)`$. This situation occursjust for lead. Below we consider another case which holds for weak-coupling superconducting tin, where the inelastic term prevails. We conclude this section with the notion that the Eliashberg EPI spectral function can be extracted from the superconducting point-contact characteristic in the same way as in tunneling spectroscopy provided that one should be sure that the inelastic terms are negligible.

## 5 Inelastic processes in excess current

For a weak-coupling superconductor ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(eV)\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}`$) the elastic contribution to the excess current is negligible. Consider the Sn-Cu S-c-N point contact which is shown schematically as an inset in Fig.6 . First of all, in the normal state Sn and Cu have approximately the same electronic parameters ($`v_F`$) and overlapped energy regions of the phonon density of states. Their PC EPI spectra are shown as curves 5 and 6 for Sn and Cu, respectively. In a symmetrical heterocontact their spectral functions enter almost equally according to the formula (2) $`g_{PC}`$(Sn-Cu)$`\left(1/2\right)\left[g_{PC}\text{(Sn)}+g_{PC}\text{(Cu)}\right]`$ which is shown as dotted curve 4. Accordingly, the measured PC spectrum in the normal state of the heterocontact looks like curve 3 which (with a small smooth background subtracted) leads to solid curve 4. The coincidence between dotted and solid curves 4 not only in shape but also in amplitude is fairly well. In the superconducting state of the same contact the excess current appears, which is shown by curve 1 in Fig.6 as the difference between the total current and the Ohmic term $`V/R_0`$ in superconducting and normal states, respectively. Evidently, the excess current is not constant. We disregard the large hysteresis-like drop at high voltage (larger than the phonon energy band) due to heating and concentrate our attention on the smooth decrease along the phonon energy range. The second derivative (PC spectrum) of IVC in the superconducting state is shown as curve 2. Apart from the smooth background which steeply rises when the voltage approaches the energy gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(Sn)$`0.6`$ meV) from above, one sees the curve which almost reproduces the features seen in the normal-state spectrum (curve 3). We thus conclude that the main nonlinearities in the superconducting state come from the backscattering current the same as in the normal state. Yet, there are small peculiarities such as the small shift of the maxima to the lower energy (shown by the vertical dashed line in Fig.6) and a slight broadening of peaks. These peculiarities are predicted by theory . The unexpected shift to the lower energy by the superconducting energy gap is due to electron-hole relaxation as a result of the Andreev reflection from the N-S boundary. The inelastic processes with emission of phonons occur when an electron quasiparticle with energy of the order of $`eV`$ relaxes to the hole state appearing due to Andreev reflection of another electron with energy of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For an infinitely narrow peak in the EPI function the theory leads to the maximum shifted down by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the width of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as well. Hence, in the clean S-c-N contact based on a weak-coupling superconductor the main contribution to formula (4) comes from the normal term $`\delta I_{ph}^N(V)`$ with slight modifications due to $`\delta I_{exc}^{in}(V)`$ term.

## 6 Nonequilibrium phenomena

As soon as the diameter of the contact becomes comparable with the superconducting coherence length $`\xi _0`$, the nonequilibrium phenomena may occur which lead to suppression of the gap by i) nonequilibrium populations of normal electrons and phonons with energies greater than $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, ii) entering the magnetic flux vortices generated by the current through the contact, or iii) simply by heating of the contact region.

In Fig.7 the PC spectra of Ta-Cu contact are shown both in the normal (curve 1) and superconducting (curve 2) states . Since the Fermi velocity of Ta is noticeably less and the strength of EPI in Ta is essentially higher than for Cu, only the EPI spectrum of Ta is seen in the experiment: $`g_{PC}^{(TaCu)}\frac{1}{2}g_{PC}^{(Ta)}`$ (see Eq.(2). Although the relatively high resistance of contact ($`R_0=80`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) implies a small size $`(d78`$ Å), the ultimate (at $`eV>\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}`$) electron-phonon mean free path is also small ($`l_{in}120`$ Å) and the reabsorption of nonequilibrium phonons may occur. Also the superconducting coherence length in Ta ($`\xi _0=90`$ nm) is smaller than in Sn ($`\xi _0=270`$ nm), especially for the dirty Ta-contact region. This is more favourable for nonequilibrium transitions in the superconducting state and assists, by decreasing $`H_{c1}`$, the current-generated vortices to enter the contact area. All this makes the EPI spectrum in the superconducting state of Ta quite different from what is observed in Sn. There is no shift of the phonon peaks by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to lower biases. Instead, the lower is the contact resistance (the smaller is the size), the more fixed are the transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) phonon peaks at energies of 11.3 and 18 meV with very small scattering of $`\pm 0.1`$ meV. The peak of T-phonon (see curve 2 in Fig.7) grows narrower instead of broadening and with increase of the contact size all the peaks become sharpened (Fig.8). This contrasts to the behaviour of phonon peaks in clean Ta point contacts in the normal state where one observes the spreadingss of energy positions in the limit of $`\pm 1`$ meV probably due to the random anisotropy of the microcrystal orientation with respect to the contact axis. The explanation is as following. The nonequilibrium phonons slowly diffuse from the dirty contact region effectively averaging their direction in the momentum space. The phonon peaks at reproducible fixed positions appear due to the slow phonon group velocity (corresponding to the maximum of the averaged phonon density of state) which are accumulated in the contact region and thus effectively depresses the superconducting energy gap and sxcess curent. In addition to the common energy-gap feature at $`eV0.6`$ meV, a new pecularity appears at $`V_1`$ (at about 5$`÷7`$ meV in Fig.7), which has strong intensity (note that the ordinate of this fragment has a factor of 0.01!), and whose voltage satisfies the relation $`V_1^2/R_0=const`$. The latter means that either the power input by the current or the magnetic field generated at the contact achieve the threshold value. The threshold value increases with temperature and external magnetic field which is just opposite to the behaviour expected for destruction of superconductivity by simple heating or critical current conditions. We infer that at larger biases the superconductor turns into the nonequilibrium state and the increase in threshold value is explained by enhanced relaxation of nonequilibrium quasiparticles which demand a stronger injection to fulfil the threshold conditions. In this state the phonon features remain at the proper energies and are seen as a sharp singularity on IVC and its derivatives (Fig.8), whilst in the normal state only the smooth background without any spectral features is observed. Although there is no theory explaining quantitatively these phenomena yet, the experimental extension of the superconducting PCS to the materials with a short inelastic mean free path and coherence length seems to be very encouraging in view of studies on exotic superconductors, such as high-Tc, heavy fermions and organic compounds.

## 7 Concluding remarks

We have briefly described the state of the art of point-contact spectroscopy in the superconducting state. It allows one to penetrate into the mechanism of electron-quasiparticle interaction which may mediate the Cooper pairing. Contrary to tunneling spectroscopy, the point-contact spectroscopy needs not any barrier which inevitably interrupts the homogeneity of the material studied and often hampers investigation of many complicated compounds. At the expense of this, PCS results in principle to the highly nonequilibrium state which in case of superconductors leads to many complications. We hope that with development of new technique of producing well controlled constrictions of nanoscale size and elaborating a new theoretical approach the PCS will conquer more and more supporters and will become in the future as important as the tunneling spectroscopy.

The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the International Science Foundation (Soros Foundation).