text:
# Charge Freezing in Zig-zag Chain Cuprates PrBa2Cu4O8 Observed by Cu Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance

## Abstract

We report nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) studies on the chain Cu sites of PrBa2Cu4O8, a quasi-one-dimensional conductor with a nearly quarter-filled band. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`1/T_1`$ shows a pronounced peak near 100 K caused by fluctuations of electric field gradient (EFG). Similar peak was observed for the spin-echo decay rate $`1/T_2`$, however, at a different temperature near 50 K. These results and broadening of the NQR spectrum at low temperatures indicate that slow charge fluctuations of either electronic or ionic origin freeze gradually at low temperatures.

There has been increasing interest in quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) correlated electrons. Theoretical studies on generalized Hubbard or $`t`$-$`J`$ models for chains and ladders have revealed rich phase diagram associated with various instabilities towards Mott localization, spin density wave, charge order, and superconductivity Schulz (1994); Giamarchi (1997); Dagotto and Rice (1994). A variety of phases has been indeed observed in organic Bechgaard salts Grűner (1988) and cuprate ladder materials Uehara (1996); Nagata (1998). Pr-based cuprates, PrBa2Cu3O7 (Pr123) and PrBa2Cu4O8 (Pr124), also provide good model systems of strongly correlated Q1D electrons. Each of these has identical structure to the respective Y-based high temperature superconductor, YBa2Cu3O7 (Y123) and YBa2Cu4O8 (Y124). The CuO2 planes in Pr-based compounds, however, show antiferromagntic order Reyes (1990); fujiyama021  and their contribution to the optical conductivity revealed features of a charge-transfer insulator Takenaka et al. (1992, 2000). The insulating nature of the CuO2 planes was explained by Fehrenbacher and Rice Fehrenbacher and Rice (1993) based on a model of the localized hole states made of Pr-4$`f`$ and O-2$`p_\pi `$ hybridized orbitals. Thus the active element for low energy spin and charge excitations in Pr-based cuprates are the Cu-O chains, single chains in Pr123 and double (zigzag) chains in Pr124.

These two compounds show contrasting transport behavior. Pr124 is a highly anisotropic Q1D metal showing extremely large in-plane resistivity anisotropy $`\rho _a/\rho _b1000`$ at 4 K Horii (2000); Mcbrien (2002); Hussey (2002), where $`b`$ is along the chain direction and $`a`$ is perpendicular to it within the CuO2 plane. Although $`\rho _b`$ shows monotonic metallic temperature dependence, $`\rho _a`$ exhibits a broad peak near 130 K, indicating incoherent transport perpendicular to the chains at high temperatures. The angle resolved photoemission spectra (ARPES) Mizokawa (2000b) also revealed a clear one-dimensional dispersion which crosses the Fermi level near the momentum $`k_b\pi /4`$, pointing to a nearly quarter-filled conduction band. In Pr123, the spectral weight of the chain contribution to the optical conductivity Takenaka et al. (1992) as well as the ARPES spectra Mizokawa (1999a) are also consistent with an approximately quarter-filled conduction band. However, semiconducting behavior of the dc-resistivity, steep suppression of the optical conductivity below 0.1 eV and vanishing ARPES intensity near the Fermi level all indicate the existence of a charge gap. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) experiments in Pr123 Grévin et al. (1998) revealed line broadening and anomalies in relaxation rates, which were ascribed to a charge ordering instability.

Apparent absence of static charge order in Pr124 may be due to slight deviation from the quarter-filling Mizokawa (2000b) or to the geometrical frustration of intersite Coulomb interactions in zigzag chains Seo and Ogata (2001). However, dynamic signature towards charge order instability is indicated by the optical conductivity in Pr124, which splits into a zero-energy Drude part with a small weight and a finite energy mode centered at 40 meV Takenaka et al. (2000). In this letter, we report results of NQR experiments for the chain Cu sites in Pr124. We found a pronounced peak in the temperature dependences of the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate ($`1/T_1`$) and spin-echo decay rate ($`1/T_2`$), as well as broadening of the NQR spectra, indicating gradual freezing of fluctuations of electric field gradient (EFG) with decreasing temperature.

The powder sample of Pr124 was synthesized by solid state reaction under high pressure as described in Yamada (1994). Standard spin-echo pulse technique was used to obtain NMR spectra. The spin-echo decay rate ($`1/T_2`$) was obtained from the spin-echo intensity measured against the time separation $`\tau `$ between $`\pi /2`$ and $`\pi `$ pulses. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate ($`1/T_1`$) was measured by inversion recovery method.

The NQR spectra for the chain Cu sites in Pr124 are presented in Fig. 1. We observed well resolved resonance lines for both 63Cu and 65Cu isotopes with the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of 560 kHz for 63Cu at 300 K. The resonance signal from the planar Cu sites was observed near 70 MHz at 1.5 K as reported elsewhere fujiyama021 , indicating an antiferromagnetic order of the planer Cu spins. The NQR spectrum for the chain Cu sites shows little change at the Néel temperature of the planar Cu spins ($`220`$ K).

The temperature dependence of $`1/T_1`$ for the chain Cu sites is shown in Fig. 2. Here $`1/T_1`$ is defined as the inverse time constant for the exponential recovery of the NQR intensity after the inversion pulse, which is three times larger than the standard definition if the relaxation is due to magnetic processes. The fitting of the recovery curve to an exponential function was satisfactory over two decades except below 100 K, where the distribution of $`1/T_1`$ results in a slightly non-exponential recovery curve. Above 200 K, $`1/T_1`$ is nearly proportional to $`T`$, similar to the results in Y124 Machi (1991). Below 200 K, however, $`1/T_1`$ deviates significantly from the $`T`$-linear behavior and shows a pronounced peak near 100 K.

A similar peak was observed also for $`1/T_2`$ shown in Fig. 3. The spin-echo decay curves can be fit well to an exponential function $`\mathrm{exp}(2\tau /T_2)`$ below 200 K. At higher temperatures, the spin-echo decay curve contains also a small Gaussian component and the fitting becomes less satisfactory. Although $`1/T_2`$ is almost independent of temperature above 100 K, there is a strong peak near 50 K. Note that this temperature is lower than the peak of $`1/T_1`$ by 50 K. The peak value $`1/T_2120`$ ms-1 is more than 5 times larger than the value reported for Y124 Itoh (1992).

The isotopic ratio of these relaxation rates can be used to identify the relaxation process. Both $`1/T_1`$ and $`1/T_2`$ are larger for 65Cu than for 63Cu when the temperature is sufficiently higher or lower than the peak (Figs. 2 and 3). Their ratio is close to the ratio of squared nuclear gyromagnetic ratio $`(^{65}\gamma /^{63}\gamma )^2=1.148`$, indicating that relaxation is caused by fluctuations of the local magnetic field acting on nuclei. In the temperature range near the peak, on the other hand, both relaxation rates are larger for 63Cu, with the isotopic ratio close to the ratio of squared nuclear electric quadrupole moments $`(^{65}Q/^{63}Q)^2=0.856`$. Therefore, we conclude that the peaks in the relaxation rates are caused by fluctuations of the electric field gradient (EFG) tensor, $`V_{\alpha \beta }=^2V/x_\alpha x_\beta `$, where $`V`$ is the electrostatic potential at the nuclear position.

The relaxation rates can then be related to the time correlation functions of EFG components. A simple interpretation of temperature dependences of $`1/T_1`$ and $`1/T_2`$, in particular the difference in their peak temperatures, is given by a classical model of motional narrowing Bloembergen et al. (1948); abragam . Let us assume a simple exponential form for the correlation functions, $`V_{\alpha \beta }(t)V_{\alpha \beta }(0)=V_{\alpha \beta }^2\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _c)`$, where $`\tau _c`$ is the correlation time of the fluctuations. The spin-lattice relaxation rate is given by their Fourier transform at the NQR frequency $`\omega _n`$ (20 MHz in our case),

$$\frac{1}{T_1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\tau _c}{1+\omega _n^2\tau _c^2},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the magnitude of the transition matrix element of the quadrupolar interaction, which is proportional to the amplitude of the EFG fluctuations $`V_{\alpha \beta }`$ appropriately averaged over different tensor components. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is constant but $`\tau _c`$ depends on temperature, $`1/T_1`$ attains the maximum value when $`\omega _n\tau _c=1`$. Thus the peak of $`1/T_1`$ is naturally understood due to increase of $`\tau _c`$ with decreasing temperature, i.e., slowing down of the EFG fluctuations at low temperatures. By applying Eq. (1) to the experimental data, we deduced $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi =170`$ kHz and $`1/\tau _c`$ is obtained as a function of temperature near 100 K as shown in Fig. 4. Although the temperature range is limited (75 K $`T`$ 140 K), we can extract an activation energy 430 K from the temperature dependence of $`1/\tau _c`$.

In contrast, it is known that $`1/T_2`$ determined from the spin-echo decay curve takes the maximum value $`1/T_2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _c1`$ Takigawa and Saito (1986); abragam . Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is two orders of magnitude smaller than $`\omega _n`$, gradual slowing down of the EFG fluctuations accounts for the fact the the peak in $`1/T_2`$ occurs at a lower temperature than the peak of $`1/T_1`$. The plot in Fig. 4 indeed shows that $`1/\tau _c10^6`$ s$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near 50K, where $`1/T_2`$ shows a peak. The value of $`1/T_2`$ at the peak (Fig. 3) is also of the same orders of magnitude as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, consistent with our model.

If the correlation time continuously grows at lower temperatures, we expect the EFG fluctuations to freeze eventually resulting in broadening of the NQR spectrum. This is indeed observed as shown in Fig. 1. The width (FWHM) of 63Cu NQR spectrum is 400 kHz at 300 K, while it increases rapidly below 20 K and reaches 800 kHz at 4.2 K. If we assume two independent contributions to the width, one due to $`T`$-independent inhomogeneity which is represented by the spectrum at 300 K and the other due to freezing of EFG fluctuations at low temperatures, and square of the widths from these sources add to make up the observed value, the FWHM due to EFG freezing at 4.2 K is estimated to be 570 kHz. This value agrees with the second moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi =170`$ kHz deduced from the $`1/T_1`$ data, which translates to FWHM of 400 kHz for a Gaussian distribution.

The results of $`1/T_1`$, $`1/T_2`$, and the NQR spectra altogether provide convincing evidence for slow EFG fluctuations, which freeze randomly at low temperatures. Such fluctuations must be caused by motion of either electronic or ionic charges. Let us summarize the prominent features that characterize the fluctuations, irrespective of their origin. First, the dynamics is extremely slow, with $`1/\tau _c`$ ranging from $`10^6`$ to $`10^9`$ sec-1 in the temperature range 50 - 150 K corresponding to the anomalous nuclear relaxation. It is much too slow to be attributed to the transport of individual electrons along the chain. Second is the glassy and random nature. Gradual slowing down of the fluctuations without a well defined critical temperature is evidenced by the different peak temperatures of $`1/T_1`$ and $`1/T_2`$. Spatial randomness with no signature of a long range order breaking translational symmetry is indicated by the broadening of the NQR spectrum with no line splitting nor fine structure. These are in sharp contrast to what have been observed in charge-density-wave (CDW) materials such as NbSe3 Suits and Slichter (1984), where peak temperatures for $`1/T_1`$ and $`1/T_2`$ coincide. Third, the amplitude of the fluctuating EFG is rather small, of the order of a few hundred kHz. It is known for high-$`T_c`$ cuprates that NQR frequency changes with hole concentration approximately at a rate 20 - 30 MHz/hole yasuoka951 ; zheng (1995). Therefore, if the NQR anomalies in Pr124 are due to electronic origin, only a minor fraction of the holes are relevant. The charge distribution at low temperatures must still be largely uniform and only partial random freezing is possible with amplitude of the order of 1 % of holes per site.

Although we do not have conclusive evidence concerning the origin of the anomalous EFG fluctuations, following observations suggest that collective electron-lattice coupled motion is important. The peak in $`1/T_1`$ and the subsequent spectral change at lower temperatures described here are very similar to what were observed in the lightly hole-doped two-leg ladder compound Sr24Cu24O41 Takigawa et al. (1998). This material is an insulator at low temperatures and there are evidences for charge order in the ladder planes from both the frequency dependent conductivity Kitano (2001); Blumberg (2002) and the development of fine structure in the NQR spectrum Takigawa et al. (1998). Thus the peak in $`1/T_1`$ in this material is most likely caused by collective fluctuations of electronic charge. The similarity of the NQR results suggests that this is also the case for Pr124. However, Pr124 is a good metal and dc-transport measurements indicate no sign of static charge order.

The optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ by Takenaka et al Takenaka et al. (2000), on the other hand, clearly shows dynamical correlation towards charge order instability, as mentioned earlier. The spectrum of $`\sigma (\omega )`$ along the chain direction splits into the Drude like zero energy mode with only 2 % of the total spectral weight and a gapped finite energy mode centered at 40 meV. The two-component structure resembles that observed in the organic Bechgaard salts Dressel (1996); Schwartz (1998) and suggests dynamic short range correlation for charge disproportionation. The frequency dependence of high energy part of $`\sigma (\omega )`$ was analyzed in the framework of the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid, yielding a small value of the charge correlation exponent $`K_\rho 0.24`$, which implies strong repulsive interaction Takenaka et al. (2000). These results altogether point out that Pr124 is in close proximity to charge order, therefore, charge freezing may occur near impurities or can be triggered by a coupling to the lattice.

No structural transition has been reported in Pr124 so far. However, recent neutron diffraction results back021  indicates sudden change of Ba position along the $`c`$-direction by about 0.05 $`\AA `$ near 160 K. The Raman spectra of Ba-phonon mode also show large frequency shift and sudden narrowing near the same temperature back001 . Although we notice a slight shift of the NQR frequency by about 100 kHz (Fig. 1) from 300 K to 100 K, which may be a consequence of movement of Ba, uniform change of ionic positions do not cause broadening of the spectrum. It is not likely that the static and dynamic NQR anomalies described here are merely lattice effects, since they are not observed in the isostructural Y124. On the other hand, when such double-well type ionic instability is coupled to an electron system close to charge order, we suspect that a static partial charge freezing can occur.

In summary, the pronounced peaks in $`1/T_1`$ and $`1/T_2`$ at different temperatures and broadening of the NQR spectrum at lower temperatures for the chain Cu sites in PrBa2Cu4O8 provide evidence for slow fluctuations of electric field gradient. Their correlation time is extremely slow and show glassy freezing at low temperatures. The amplitude of the fluctuations and concomitant freezing is about two orders of magnitude smaller than what we expect when the whole carrier in the Cu2O2 chains participate in charge order.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank H. Seo, M. Ogata and Y. Ohta for stimulating discussion and to M. Osada for information regarding Ref. back021 . This work is supported by the Grants–in–aid for Scientific Research, Priority Area (A) on the Novel Quantum Phenomena in Transition Metal Oxides from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Japan. S. F. was supported by the Research Fellowship for Young Scientists from the Japan Society for Promotion of Science.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We present measurements of inclusive production cross sections for $`K_S^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ particles, collectively referred to as $`V^0`$ particles, in collisions of 920 GeV protons with several nuclear targets of different atomic mass $`A`$. The production of $`V^0`$ particles has been studied by numerous experiments with different beams ($`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`p`$, $`n`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) on different targets, covering a momentum range of 4–400 GeV/c (see  and refs. therein). A large fraction of these experiments utilized bubble chambers. At center-of-mass energies above $`\sqrt{s}30`$ GeV, inclusive $`V^0`$ production cross sections have been measured by experiments at the CERN proton-proton Intersecting Storage Rings (ISR) . However, only a lower limit for the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ cross section has been reported . Also, the $`V^0`$ total production cross sections reported in  are substantially above expectations based on extrapolation of results obtained at lower energies.

Recently, progress in heavy ion physics has renewed interest in studies of strange-particle production. One of the main goals of heavy-ion experiments is the observation of the quark-gluon plasma , and one of the signatures for this new state is enhanced production of strange particles . Observables of interest are ratios of antibaryons to baryons at mid-rapidity, which are important for net baryon density evaluations and which have been used recently to extract values of chemical potentials and temperatures  for Au-Au collisions at RHIC. Also of interest are the squared transverse momentum ($`p_t^2`$) distributions, $`d\sigma /d`$$`p_t^2`$, which contain information about the temperature of the system; specifically, if it reached thermal equilibrium (see, e.g., ). These investigations attach importance to a comprehensive measurement of strange-particle production properties in “ordinary” nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) and nucleon-nucleus ($`NA`$) collisions. The latter are expected to establish a valuable baseline for comparisons among $`AA`$ results .

## 2 The HERA-B Experiment

HERA-B is a fixed target experiment at the 920 GeV proton storage ring of HERA at DESY . It was originally designed to study CP violation in $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ decays; thus, the spectrometer was optimized to detect and precisely locate decays of $`J/\psi `$ and longer-lived $`K_S^0`$ mesons. The first experience with the apparatus was gained during an engineering run in the year 2000. While the main goal was to commission the sophisticated $`J/\psi `$-based trigger system, there were also run periods dedicated to recording minimum bias events, i.e., events selected with a random trigger that uniformly sampled all HERA bunches. These data allow for precise measurements of strange-particle production cross sections.

A plan view of the HERA-B spectrometer is shown in Fig. 1. The spectrometer dipole magnet provides a field integral of 2.13 T-m, with the main component perpendicular to the $`x`$-$`z`$ plane. The apparatus (including particle identification counters) has a forward acceptance of 10–220 mrad in the bending plane and 10–160 mrad in the non-bending plane. The experiment uses a multi-wire fixed target which operates in the halo of the proton beam during HERA $`e`$-$`p`$ collider operation. Up to eight different targets can be operated simultaneously, with their positions being adjusted dynamically in order to maintain a constant interaction rate between 1 and 40 MHz. For the measurements presented here, wires made of carbon (C), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), and tungsten (W) were used. Their transverse width was 50 $`\mu `$m, and their thickness along the beam direction was 1000 $`\mu `$m for carbon and 500 $`\mu `$m otherwise.

The tracking system consists of a vertex detector system (VDS) and a main tracker system. The latter is separated into an inner tracker (ITR) close to the proton beam-pipe and an outer tracker (OTR) farther out. The VDS  features 64 double-sided silicon microstrip detectors arranged in eight stations along, and four quadrants around, the proton beam. The silicon strips have a readout pitch of approximately 50 $`\mu `$m. The strips are rotated on the wafer such that each pair of wafers provides four stereo views: $`\pm 2.5^{}`$ and $`90^{}\pm 2.5^{}`$. The ITR uses GEM microstrip gas chambers , and the OTR uses honeycomb drift chambers . There are a total of 13 ITR + OTR tracking stations, with each one referred to as a “superlayer.” For the analysis presented here, only data from the six superlayers located downstream of the magnet are used. Also, this analysis does not use particle-identification information from the ring-imaging Cherenkov counter , the electromagnetic calorimeter , or the muon detector .

## 3 Data Analysis

The results presented here are based on a sample of $``$ 2.4 million randomly triggered events recorded in April 2000. The HERA proton beam had 180 filled bunches and a bunch crossing rate of 10.4 MHz. The interaction rate was adjusted to values between 2 and 6 MHz, leading to most bunch crossings ($`90\%`$) having either 0 or 1 interaction. For this analysis, only tracks with a minimum of five hits in the VDS and ten hits in the main tracker were used. The same event selection procedures were applied as were used to determine the integrated luminosity. No explicit selection on track multiplicity was applied.

In each event with at least two tracks, a full combinatorial search for $`V^0`$ candidates was performed. $`V^0`$ candidates were selected from all pairs of oppositely charged tracks that formed a vertex downstream of the primary vertex. The minimum distance between the two tracks was required to be less than 0.7 mm. No particle identification criteria were applied to the tracks. The primary vertex was determined from all tracks reconstructed in the VDS excluding the $`V^0`$ tracks. Using tracks reconstructed in both the VDS and the main tracker, we measured the spatial resolution of the reconstructed primary vertex to be 0.7 mm along the $`z`$-direction. The position of the primary vertex was required to coincide with the center of a target wire to within three standard deviations (2.1 mm). If a primary vertex could not be reconstructed, the $`z`$ coordinate of the target was used to calculate the $`z`$-component of the particle’s flight length. An Armenteros-Podolanski plot  for the selected $`V^0`$ candidates is shown in Fig. 2. Clusters of events shaped according to the kinematics of $`K_S^0`$$``$$`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$``$$`p`$$`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$$``$$`\overline{p}`$$`\pi ^+`$ decays are clearly visible. The $`V^0`$ candidates from those regions of Fig. 2 in which two of the three $`V^0`$ species overlap – and thus are kinematically indistinguishable – were rejected. This reduced the $`K_S^0`$ yield by 3.5% and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) yield by 10% (20%). An additional requirement $`\stackrel{~}{p}_tc\tau >0.05(\mathrm{GeV}/c)\mathrm{cm}`$ was applied to reduce background from $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ conversions, where $`\stackrel{~}{p}_t`$ is the transverse momentum relative to the $`V^0`$ line-of-flight and $`\tau `$ is the $`V^0`$ proper lifetime. This requirement also reduced combinatorial background from the target, which populates the lower region of Fig. 2.

The invariant mass distributions for the selected candidates are shown in Fig. 3. Clear signals corresponding to $`K_S^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ particles are visible. In order to estimate the event yields, fits with a Gaussian function for signal and a third-order Legendre polynomial for background were performed. The width obtained for the $`K_S^0`$ mass peak was about 5.6 MeV/c2, which is consistent with the momentum resolution of $`\sigma (p)/p^210^4`$ (GeV/c)-1. The resultant event yields are summarized in Table 1 for each target material.

## 4 Acceptance Determination

A Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is used to determine the reconstruction efficiency for the selected particles and decay channels. The production of a $`V^0`$ particle in an inelastic event is simulated using a kinematic distribution of the form:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dp_t^2dx_F}=C(1|x_F|)^nexp(Bp_t^2),$$
(1)
where $`x_F`$ is the Feynman-$`x`$ variable and $`p_t`$ the transverse momentum in the laboratory system. This phenomenological ansatz is motivated by quark counting rules and phase space arguments  and has been shown to describe a substantial amount of data well (see  and refs. therein). The value of the parameter $`B`$ of 2.1 (GeV/$`c`$)-2 is taken from Ref. , and a flat $`x_F`$ distribution is assumed ($`n=0`$). The $`x_F`$ bin size of 0.015 is chosen to be compatible with the momentum resolution. After the generation of the $`V^0`$ particle, the remaining momentum is assigned to a virtual $`\pi ^+`$, which is input as a beam particle to the FRITIOF 7.02 package  in order to further simulate interactions within the nucleus.

The generated particles are propagated through the geometry and material description of the detector using the GEANT 3.21 package . The detector response is simulated including realistic descriptions of chamber efficiencies and dead channels. The MC events are subjected to the same reconstruction chain as that used for the data. For tracks within the geometrical acceptance that originate from $`V^0`$ decays, we determine an efficiency of $``$ 90% to reconstruct the track and assign a momentum. This value is confirmed by the analysis of real data.

After all cuts, the efficiency to identify a $`V^0`$ particle is approximately 10% for $`K_S^0`$ and 5% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. These values are dominated by the geometrical acceptance. All efficiencies are computed in bins of rapidity $`y`$ and $`p_t^2`$ in order to be independent of the details of the MC model of $`V^0`$ production.

## 5  Production Cross Sections

The cross section $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{V^0}`$ for the production of a $`V^0`$ particle within the spectrometer acceptance can be expressed as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{V^0}=\frac{1}{B_{V^0}}_{accp}\frac{N_{V^0}(y,p_t^2)}{\epsilon (y,p_t^2)}𝑑y𝑑p_t^2,$$
(2)
where $`N_{V^0}(y,p_t^2)`$ is the number of $`V^0`$ candidates observed in bins of rapidity $`y`$ and $`p_t^2`$. The detection efficiency $`\epsilon (y,p_t^2)`$ is calculated from the MC simulations described above. The branching fraction $`B_{V^0}`$ for the detected decay $`V^0f`$ is taken from Ref. . Finally, the integrated luminosity $``$ is computed from the interaction rate at the target . The resultant luminosities for each target material are listed in Table 1.

The efficiency-corrected values of the inclusive differential cross section $`d\sigma _{pA}/dx_F`$ for $`V^0`$ production within the spectrometer acceptance are listed in Table 2 for the various target materials. The corresponding $`x_F`$ interval is $`[0.12,0]`$, except in the case of $`K_S^0`$ production on the W target, where it is $`[0.09,0]`$.

As the $`x_F`$ acceptance of the spectrometer is restricted, for comparison with results from other experiments it is necessary to extrapolate the differential cross sections $`d\sigma _{pA}/dx_F`$ to the entire kinematic range $`x_F`$$`[1,+1]`$. This was done using the parameterization $`d\sigma /dx_F(1|x_F|)^n`$, where $`n`$ is a constant. The values used for $`n`$ are taken from previous measurements of inclusive strange-particle production  and are listed in Table 2. The difference between values for different $`V^0`$ species is compatible with theoretical predictions based upon quark counting rules . The resulting $`V^0`$ total production cross sections ($`\sigma _{pA}`$) are also listed in Table 2. The fraction of the cross sections within the detector acceptance is 30% for $`K_S^0`$ ($`n=6.0`$), 17% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`n=2.2`$), and 34% for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ ($`n=8.0`$).

The dependence of the measured cross sections on the atomic mass of the target material is shown in Fig. 4 along with fits of two different kinds. The dashed lines are fits to the form $`\sigma _{pA}A^\alpha `$, while the solid lines are fits within the framework of the Glauber model . These latter fits allow us to extract the production cross section per nucleon, $`\sigma _{pN}`$. All fit results are listed in Table 3. The Glauber model calculations use a nucleon density given by the Saxon-Woods potential , and the total cross sections for $`KN`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ collisions and the slope of the diffraction scattering cone are taken from Refs. .

### 5.1  The $`p_t^2`$ Differential Cross Sections

The extrapolation of the the $`p_t^2`$ distributions for $`K_S^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ particles over the entire $`x_F`$ range $`[1,+1]`$ yields the differential cross sections $`d\sigma /dp_T^2`$ listed in Table 4. These data are presented graphically in Fig. 5 together with fits to the form

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dp_t^2}=\sigma Bexp(Bp_t^2),$$
(3)
where the parameter $`B`$ is independent of $`x_F`$ and $`p_t^2`$. Table 5 summarizes the values of $`B`$ obtained for the different target materials and $`V^0`$ particles. No significant dependence upon the target material is seen.

### 5.2  Systematic Uncertainties

To estimate the uncertainty in the efficiency determination, we varied the $`V^0`$ selection criteria applied to data and simulated events. Different track quality requirements used in the vertex reconstruction were studied in order to understand differences observed between data and MC results; the variation of cuts causes a change of 7% in the cross section values. Cuts on the primary and $`V^0`$ vertices give a 2% change. The variation of the distance required between tracks to form a $`V^0`$ decay vertex contributes another 2%. The systematic error due to the limited statistics of MC events is 1% for $`K_S^0`$ and 3% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ particles. The use of different fitting functions for the shape of the background in the invariant mass spectra, and the variations of bin sizes for invariant mass, $`x_F`$, and $`p_t^2`$, result in a change in the cross sections of approximately 5%.

The efficiency of the ITR improved during data taking (as this system was further commissioned), and this caused a systematic shift in the track reconstruction efficiencies. These shifts are +14%, +11%, and +20% for $`K_S^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ particles, respectively.

We used three independent methods to determine the integrated luminosity. The results differ by 4–7%, which we include as an additional systematic uncertainty. For more details, see Ref. .

To extrapolate $`d\sigma /dp_t^2`$ to the entire kinematic range of $`x_F`$, we used Eq. 1 with experimentally determined values  of the parameter $`n`$. Varying this parameter by the estimated experimental uncertainty ($`\pm 0.5`$) leads to a variation of 5% in the $`K_S^0`$ cross sections, 12% in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross sections, and 2% in the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ cross sections.

The cross sections were measured on different nuclei, and extracting the cross sections per nucleon ($`\sigma _{pN}`$) from the measured values was done via the Glauber model. Variations of the parameters of this model give a 12% systematic uncertainty in $`\sigma _{pN}`$.

Adding all systematic errors in quadrature, we obtain the total systematic errors for the cross sections per nucleus $`d\sigma _{pA}/dx_F`$, $`d\sigma _{pA}/dp_t^2`$, and $`\sigma _{pA}`$, and for the cross section per nucleon $`\sigma _{pN}`$. All systematic errors are given in Tables 2, 3, and 4 (listed after statistical errors); the errors are asymmetric due to changes in running conditions for the ITR.

## 6  Discussion of Results

More precise than the production cross sections themselves are cross section ratios, since, for these, acceptance corrections and systematic errors to a large extent cancel. From the measurements presented above we calculate the ratios $`d\sigma (K_S^0)/d\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ = $`6.2\pm 0.5`$ and $`d\sigma (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})/d\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ = $`0.66\pm 0.07`$, for $`x_F0.06`$ (i.e., mid-rapidity). The $`d\sigma (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})/d\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ ratio is plotted in Fig. 6 for the different target materials; no significant dependence upon the target material (i.e., atomic mass $`A`$) is seen, and this holds also for the $`d\sigma (K_S^0)/d\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ ratio.

Ratios between antiparticle yields and particle yields measured at mid-rapidity have attracted special interest in studies of the dependence of $`AA`$ collision dynamics upon collision energy . Fig. 6 shows the ratio of yields for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particles at mid-rapidity in $`AA`$ collisions as a function of center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$. The data plotted are from the BNL AGS ($`\sqrt{s_{NN}}5.4`$ GeV), the CERN SPS ($`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ 10–30 GeV), and RHIC ($`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV) . Comparing these measurements with corresponding results from $`pp`$  and $`pA`$  collisions shows these data to exhibit a similar energy dependence, and the HERA-B result at $`\sqrt{s}=41.6`$ GeV is consistent with this trend. Closer inspections suggests that the $`pp`$, $`pA`$, and $`AA`$ data follow individual curves that are slightly shifted in energy. This would be consistent with results from NA49 , which found that in $`pp`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3`$ GeV the ratio $`d\sigma (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})/d\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is about 60% larger than that in $`pA`$ collisions, and in $`AA`$ collisions at the same $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ the ratio is about 60% smaller. However, more data are needed to confirm this behavior.

The measured $`p_t^2`$ spectra presented above are well-parametrized by Eq. 3. The results (Table 5) show no significant dependence upon the target material, and they are compatible with results from other experiments, e.g. from $`pp`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=27.6`$ GeV, where at $`p_t^2`$ $`<`$ 1.5 (GeV/$`c`$)2 B parameters for $`K_S^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ particles of $`3.59\pm 0.18`$ (GeV/$`c`$)-2, $`2.73\pm 0.21`$ (GeV/$`c`$)-2 and $`2.66\pm 0.74`$ (GeV/$`c`$)-2, respectively, have been extracted ; for more examples see the compilation in . Due to the limited statistics available, the present study was done in the $`p_t^2`$ region below 1.1 (GeV/$`c`$)2; thus we cannot confirm the flattening of the $`p_t^2`$ spectrum above 1.2 (GeV/c)2 (see e.g. ).

The narrow acceptance in $`x_F`$ for this data set also precludes us from measuring “leading particle” effects, which have been observed by other fixed target experiments at $`x_F>0.4`$ (see e.g. ). However, we have measured for the first time $`V^0`$ differential cross sections for different target materials at negative $`x_F`$ ($`0.12<x_F<0`$). We extrapolate these results to the full $`x_F`$ range to obtain total cross sections for different values of atomic mass $`A`$. We fit these values to the conventional expression $`\sigma _{pA}A^\alpha `$ and also to the Glauber model. The values obtained for $`\alpha `$ from the first fit (Table 3) are very similar to those observed in other hadroproduction processes, which can be characterized  by $`\alpha (x_F)=0.80.75x_F+0.45x_F^3/|x_F|`$ .

From the Glauber-model fits we extract $`V^0`$ cross sections per nucleon, $`\sigma _{pN}`$ (Table 3). Fig. 7 presents a comparison of these results with previous experimental results . The HERA-B results show good agreement with the general systematic trend as quantified by the curves. These curves were calculated from a fit  for the average number of $`V^0`$ particles per inelastic collision as a function of $`\mathrm{ln}(s)`$, in the interval $`13.5<\sqrt{s}<28`$ GeV. The data in Fig. 7 suggest that this parametrization is valid up to the HERA-B energy of $`\sqrt{s}=41.6`$ GeV, and even up to the highest ISR energy of $`\sqrt{s}=63`$ GeV. Our value for the $`K_S^0`$ cross section is in good agreement with the value obtained at $`\sqrt{s}=52.5`$ GeV . The large cross section reported in  for $`\sqrt{s}=63`$ GeV has been recognized  to be biased by ghost tracks. In addition, our value for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ total cross section per nucleon is in good agreement with the values obtained at the ISR at $`\sqrt{s}=53`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=62`$ GeV . As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production is known to receive large contributions from fragmentation processes, such a good agreement is noteworthy: it implies that also for small $`x_F`$ the parameterization of the (double-differential) cross section given in Eq. 1 is valid.

## Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the DESY laboratory for the strong support in setting up and running the HERA-B experiment. We are also indebted to the DESY accelerator group for the continuous efforts to provide good and stable beam conditions. The HERA-B experiment would not have been possible without the enormous effort and commitment of our technical and administrative staff. It is a pleasure to thank all of them.
We thank the theoreticians B. Kopeliovich and H.J. Pirner for many stimulating discussions and suggestions.


text:
# Relativistic mechanism of superconductivity

## 1 Introduction

In BCS theory, it is believed that the mechanism responsible for the transition to superconductivity is a coupling between electrons via the positive ions of metallic lattice. The electron-lattice-electron interaction provides an attraction between electrons which can lead to a ground state separated from excited states by an energy gap. Whereas, in recent years the discovery of high $`T_c`$ superconductivity has offered a challenge for BCS theory, the first great difficult in the extension of BCS theory is to discover a nature of interaction responsible both for the traditional and high $`T_c`$ superconductivities.

In the present paper, we propose a mechanism for superconductivity which is based on the relativity theory.

## 2 Relativistic Coulomb’s force

This section is a theoretical preparation for the next section.

Consider a particle moving in a inertial system with 4-vector velocity $`u`$, it satisfies

$$u_\mu u_\mu =c^2$$
(1)
The above equation is valid so that any force can never change $`u`$ in its magnitude but can change $`u`$ in its direction. We therefore conclude that the relativistic Coulomb’s force on a particle always acts in the direction orthogonal to the 4-vector velocity of the particle in the 4-dimensional space-time, rather than along the line joining a couple of particles. Simply, any 4-vector force $`f`$ satisfy the following orthogonal relation

$$u_\mu f_\mu =u_\mu m\frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{m}{2}\frac{d(u_\mu u_\mu )}{d\tau }=0$$
(2)
Suppose there are two charged particle $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ locating at positions $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ in the Cartesian coordinate system $`S`$ and moving at 4-vector velocities $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ respectively, as shown in Fig.1, where we use $`X`$ to denote $`xx^{}`$. The Coulomb’s force $`f`$ acting on particle $`q`$ is perpendicular (orthogonal) to the velocity direction of $`q`$, as illustrated in Fig.1, like a centripetal force, the force $`f`$ should make an attempt to rotate itself about its path center, the center may locate at the front or back of the particle $`q^{}`$, so the force $`f`$ should lie in the plane of $`u^{}`$ and $`X`$, then

$$f=Au^{}+BX$$
(3)
Where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are unknown coefficients, the possibility of this expansion was discussed in details in the paper, in where the expansion is not an assumption. Using the relation $`fu`$, we get

$$uf=A(uu^{})+B(uX)=0$$
(4)
we rewrite Eq.(3) as

$$f=\frac{A}{uX}[(uX)u^{}(uu^{})X]$$
(5)
It follows from the direction of Eq.(5) that the unit vector of the Coulomb’s force direction is given by

$$\widehat{f}=\frac{1}{c^2r}[(uX)u^{}(uu^{})X]$$
(6)
because

$`\widehat{f}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2r}}[(uX)u^{}(uu^{})X]`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2r}}[(uR)u^{}(uu^{})R]`$
$`=`$ $`[(\widehat{u}\widehat{R})\widehat{u}^{}(\widehat{u}\widehat{u}^{})\widehat{R}]`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{u}^{}\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\widehat{R}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha `$
$$|\widehat{f}|=1$$
(8)
Where $`\alpha `$ refers to the angle between $`u`$ and $`R`$, $`Ru^{},r=|R|,`$ $`\widehat{u}=u/ic,\widehat{u}^{}=u^{}/ic,\widehat{R}=R/r`$. Suppose that the magnitude of the force $`f`$ has the classical form

$$|f|=k\frac{qq^{}}{r^2}$$
(9)
Combination of Eq.(9) with (6), we obtain a modified Coulomb’s force

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kqq^{}}{c^2r^3}}[(uX)u^{}(uu^{})X]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kqq^{}}{c^2r^3}}[(uR)u^{}(uu^{})R]`$
This force is in the form of Lorentz force for the two particles.

It is follows from Eq.(10) that the force can be rewritten in terms of 4-vector components as

$`f_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`qF_{\mu \nu }u_\nu `$ (11)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ (12)
$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kq^{}}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_\mu ^{}}{r}}`$ (13)
Where we have used the relations

$$_\mu \left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=\frac{R_\mu }{r^3}$$
(14)
### 2.1 Lorentz gauge condition

From Eq.(13), because of $`u^{}R`$ , we have

$$_\mu A_\mu =\frac{kq^{}u_\mu ^{}}{c^2}_\mu \left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=\frac{kq^{}u_\mu ^{}}{c^2}\left(\frac{R_\mu }{r^3}\right)=0$$
(15)
It is known as the Lorentz gauge condition.

### 2.2 Maxwell’s equations

To note that $`R`$ has three degrees of freedom on the condition $`Ru^{}`$, so we have

$$_\mu R_\mu =3$$
(16)
$$_\mu _\mu \left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=4\pi \delta (R)$$
(17)
From Eq.(12), we have

$`_\nu F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu _\mu A_\nu _\nu _\nu A_\mu =_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kq^{}u_\mu ^{}}{c^2}}_\nu _\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{kq^{}u_\mu ^{}}{c^2}}4\pi \delta (R)`$
$`=`$ $`\mu _0J_\nu ^{}`$
where we define $`J_\nu ^{}=q^{}u_\nu ^{}\delta (R)`$. From Eq.(12), by exchanging the indices and taking the summation of them, we have

$$_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }+_\mu F_{\nu \lambda }+_\nu F_{\lambda \mu }=0$$
(19)
The Eq.(18) and (19) are known as the Maxwell’s equations. For continuous media, they are valid as well.

### 2.3 Lienard-Wiechert potential

From Maxwell’s equations, we know there is a retardation time for action to propagate between the two particles, let $`d`$ denote the distance from $`q^{}`$ to $`O`$ in Fig.1, the retardation effect is measured by

$$r=c\mathrm{\Delta }t=c\frac{d}{ic}=c\frac{\widehat{u}^{}X}{ic}=\frac{u_\nu ^{}(x_\nu ^{}x_\nu )}{c}$$
(20)
Then

$$A_\mu =\frac{kq^{}}{c^2}\frac{u_\mu ^{}}{r}=\frac{kq^{}}{c}\frac{u_\mu ^{}}{u_\nu ^{}(x_\nu ^{}x_\nu )}$$
(21)
Obviously, Eq.(21) is known as the Lienard-Wiechert potential for a moving particle.

## 3 Attraction between electron pair

In the preceding section we have devoted into electrodynamic subjects in details, the purpose is to establish full confidence in Eq.(10), re-given by

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kqq^{}}{c^2r^3}}[(uX)u^{}(uu^{})X]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kqq^{}}{c^2r^3}}[(uR)u^{}(uu^{})R]`$
from which we will in this section discuss a mechanism for superconductivity.

Obviously, for an electron pair, the first term of Eq.(22) can give an attraction between the two electrons in certain situations, the second term represents a repulsion which contributes to classical Coulomb’s force. To note that this attraction of an electron pair requires no phonon exchange, the attraction is definitely distinguishable from that in Cooper pair of BCS theory.

In superconductors, there are, probably at least, two kinds of collective motions which can eliminate the repulsion between two electrons and let the attraction being dominant , one is the combination of lattice and electron gas, another is electron gas themselves.

In traditional superconductor, the transition temperature are fairly low, the electron gas and lattice must combine to depress the repulsion in electron pair, because the isotrope effect makes it clear that ions in the metal play an essential role in superconductivity. By this view point, we can arrive at the same consequences as BCS theory.

In high $`T_c`$ superconductor, for certain situations, the lattice may play less-important role in eliminating the repulsion in electron pair, the repulsion may be removed by the electron gas itself.

In normal material without superconductivity, there must be in balance between the repulsion and attraction in an electron pair, so that the fermi gas theory plays good enough for explaining metallic properties, where the electrons can be regarded as free electrons.

In the other hand, in some material, it is possible that the repulsion of electron pair becomes dominant, thus the material will have opposite behavior with respect to the superconductivity at low temperatures.

## 4 Quantum wave equations

No doubt, we honestly believe that Pythagoras theorem is valid in every point in an inertial frame of reference, this requirement is an abstract constraint on motion behavior of particle in the space-time.

Consider a particle displacing $`(dx_1,dx_2,dx_3)`$ in time interval $`dt`$ at speed $`v`$, Pythagoras theorem is written in the form:

$$(dx_1)^2+(dx_2)^2+(dx_3)^2=(vdt)^2$$
(23)
Using the above equation, we find

$`(dx_1)^2+(dx_2)^2+(dx_3)^2(cdt)^2`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`(vdt)^2(cdt)^2`$
$`=`$ $`(icdt)^2[1({\displaystyle \frac{v}{c}})^2]`$
With the help of new notations $`x_4=ict`$ and $`d\tau =dt\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}`$ , Defining 4-vector velocity

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1/dt}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{d\tau }}`$ (25)
$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2/dt}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{d\tau }}`$ (26)
$`u_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_3/dt}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{dx_3}{d\tau }}`$ (27)
$`u_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ic}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{dx_4}{d\tau }}`$ (28)
Eq.(24) can be rewritten as

$$u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2=u_\mu u_\mu =c^2$$
(29)
Where Greek index $`\mu `$ takes on 1,2,3 and 4. Multiplying the last equation with the rest mass $`m`$ of the particle, we obtain

$$\frac{d(mu_\mu u_\mu )}{d\tau }=2m𝐮\frac{d𝐮}{d\tau }+2mu_4\frac{du_4}{d\tau }=0$$
(30)
Separating the last equation into two equations by using new notations $`𝐟`$ and $`f_4`$, we have

$`m{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐮}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐟`$ (31)
$`m{\displaystyle \frac{du_4}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐮𝐟}{u_4}}=f_4`$ (32)
The above equations represents the well-known relativistic dynamics given by

$$m\frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }=f_\mu $$
(33)
You see, indeed, the relativistic mechanics can be derived from ancient Pythagoras theorem. For the details, please see the paper

In an electromagnetic field, the dynamic equation \[Eq.(33)\] is valid at every point in the space-time, no mater whether there is an actual particle passing the point considered, this means that there is a 4-vector velocity $`u`$ at the point regardless of whether there exists a particle, in other words, the 4-vector velocity is the geometric character of the point in the electromagnetic field, it reflects some requirement arisen from Pythagoras theorem, Every 4-vector velocity at every point forms a 4-vector velocity field $`u(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ in the space-time ( like the geometrization of gravitational field ). The right side of Eq.(33) is electromagnetic field, while the left side of Eq.(33) is 4-vector velocity field, apple=apple, banana=banana, field=field, we have

$`f_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`qF_{\mu \nu }u_\nu =qu_\nu (_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )`$ (34)
$`m{\displaystyle \frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`m{\displaystyle \frac{dx_\nu }{d\tau }}({\displaystyle \frac{u_\mu }{x_\nu }})=u_\nu _\nu (mu_\mu )`$ (35)
Substituting them back into Eq.(33), and re-arranging their terms, we obtain

$`u_\nu _\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (qA_\nu )`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu )`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu (mu_\nu u_\nu )`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu (mc^2)`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )`$
Because the variables $`_\mu u_\nu `$, $`_\mu A_\nu `$, $`_\nu u_\mu `$ and $`_\nu A_\mu `$ are independent from $`u_\nu `$, a solution satisfying Eq.(36) is

$$_\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )=_\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )$$
(37)
According to Green’s formula ( or Stokes’s theorem ), the above equation allows us to introduce a potential function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in mathematics, further set $`\mathrm{\Phi }=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\psi `$, we obtain a very important equation

$$(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )\psi =i\mathrm{}_\mu \psi $$
(38)
where $`\psi `$ representing wave nature may be a complex mathematical function, its physical meanings can be determined from experiments after the introduction of the Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$.

Substituting the last equation into Eq.(29) and eliminating $`u_\mu `$, under different approximations we can derived out Klein-Gordon wave equation, Dirac wave equation and Schrodinger wave equation, for the details of the derivations please see the paper.

From Eq.(29) and Eq.(38), we obtain a new quantum wave equation

$$m^2c^2\psi ^2=(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi (i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi $$
(39)
Or in Gaussian units it is written as

$$m^2c^2\psi ^2=(i\mathrm{}_\mu \frac{q}{c}A_\mu )\psi (i\mathrm{}_\mu \frac{q}{c}A_\mu )\psi $$
(40)
Its precision is guaranteed by Pythagoras theorem. Thus, in the present paper, we expect to find out more new results beyond Dirac, Klein-Gordon or Schrodinger equations. In the following section, we will discuss spin in details which plays an important role in superconducting states.

## 5 Spin in atom

### 5.1 the electron in hydrogen atom

In this section, we use Gaussian units, and use $`m_e`$ to denote the rest mass of electron. We limit ourself to hydrogen atom and its spin.

In a spherical polar coordinate system $`(r,\theta ,\phi ,ict)`$, the nucleus of hydrogen atom provides a spherically symmetric potential $`V(r)=e/r`$ for the electron motion. The wave equation (40) for the hydrogen atom in energy eigenstate $`\psi (r,\theta ,\phi )e^{iEt/\mathrm{}}`$ may be written in the spherical coordinates:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\psi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{r}})^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\theta }})^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\phi }})^2`$ (41)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2c^2}}(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}})^2\psi ^2`$
By substituting $`\psi =R(r)X(\theta )\varphi (\phi )`$, we separate the above equation into

$`({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\phi }})^2+\kappa \varphi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{X}{\theta }})^2+[\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}]X^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}})^2+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2c^2}}(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{r^2}}]R^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
The Eq.(LABEL:b2) can be solved immediately, with the requirement that $`\varphi (\phi )`$ must be a periodic function, we find that its solution is given by

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`C_1e^{\pm i\sqrt{\kappa }\phi }=C_1e^{im\phi },`$ (45)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{\kappa }=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$
where $`C_1`$ is an integral constant.

Factoring Eq.(LABEL:b3), we get its two branches

$$\frac{X}{\theta }\pm iX\sqrt{\lambda \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}=0$$
(46)
It is easy to find their solutions

$$X(\theta )=C_2e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \sqrt{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}}𝑑\theta }}$$
(47)
where $`C_2`$ is an integral constant. The requirement of periodic function for $`X`$ demands

$$_0^{2\pi }\sqrt{\lambda \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}𝑑\theta =\pm 2\pi kk=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(48)
Factoring Eq.(LABEL:b2), we get its two branches

$$\frac{R}{r}\pm \frac{iR}{\mathrm{}c}\sqrt{(E+\frac{e^2}{r})^2m_e^2c^4\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}^2c^2}{r^2}}=0$$
(49)
and their solutions

$$R(r)=C_3e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}c}{\scriptscriptstyle \sqrt{(E+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{e^2}{r}})^2m_e^2c^4{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{}^2c^2}{r^2}}}𝑑r}}$$
(50)
where $`C_3`$ is an integral constant. The requirement that the radical wave function forms a ”standing wave” in the range from $`r=0`$ to $`r=\mathrm{}`$ demands

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}})^2m_e^2c^4{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{}^2c^2}{r^2}}}𝑑r`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \pi s`$ (51)
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$
Evaluating the definite integrals of Eq.(48) and Eq.(51) are standard excises for contour integrals in complex space.

Consider a contour $`C_\delta `$ which is a unit circle around zero, as shown in Fig.2(a), using $`z=e^{i\theta }`$, we have

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\sqrt{\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}}𝑑\theta ={\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}\sqrt{\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2z^2}{(z^21)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{iz}}`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda (z^21)^2+4m^2z^2}}{(z^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{iz}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1/2}{z1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1/2}{z+1}})\sqrt{\lambda (z^21)^2+4m^2z^2}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{i}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\sqrt{\lambda (z^21)^2+4m^2z^2}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{i}}`$
$`\underset{\eta 1}{lim}{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(z\eta )}}\sqrt{\lambda (z^21)^2+4m^2z^2}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{i}}`$
$`\underset{\xi 1}{lim}{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(z+\xi )}}\sqrt{\lambda (z^21)^2+4m^2z^2}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{i}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }+O(z^2)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{i}}`$
$`\underset{\eta 1}{lim}{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{|m|+O(z^21)}{z\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{i}}`$
$`\underset{\xi 1}{lim}{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{|m|+O(z^21)}{z+\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{i}}`$
$`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{c}2\pi \sqrt{\lambda }\hfill \\ 2\pi (\sqrt{\lambda }|m|)\hfill \\ 2\pi (\sqrt{\lambda }2|m|)\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{c}|\eta |>1,|\xi |>1\hfill \\ |\eta |<1or|\xi |<1\hfill \\ |\eta |<1,|\xi |<1\hfill \end{array}`$
Where the integrand has the poles at $`z=0`$ and $`z=\pm 1`$, and we have chosen $`\sqrt{(z^21)^2}=(z^21)`$. Comparing with Eq.(48) , the right side of Eq.(48) is required to take plus sign, we obtain

$$\sqrt{\lambda }=\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{c}k\hfill \\ k+|m|\hfill \\ k+2|m|\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{c}|\eta |>1,|\xi |>1\hfill \\ |\eta |<1or|\xi |<1\hfill \\ |\eta |<1,|\xi |<1\hfill \end{array}$$
(62)
We rename the integer $`\lambda `$ as $`j^2`$ for a convenient in the following, i.e. $`\lambda =j^2`$.

Consider a contour $`C`$ , consisting of $`C_\gamma `$, $`L_{}`$, $`C_\delta `$ and $`L`$ around zero in the plane as shown in Fig.2(b), the radius of circle $`C_\gamma `$ is large enough and the radius of circle $`C_\delta `$ is small enough. The integrand of the following equation has no pole inside the contour $`C`$, so that we have

$`{\displaystyle _C}\sqrt{(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{z}})^2m_e^2c^4{\displaystyle \frac{j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}{z^2}}}𝑑z`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\gamma }}+{\displaystyle _L_{}}+{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}+{\displaystyle _L}=0`$
The integrals in Eq.(63) are

$`{\displaystyle _{C_\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\gamma }}\sqrt{(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{z}})^2m_e^2c^4{\displaystyle \frac{j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}{z^2}}}𝑑z`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\gamma }}[\sqrt{E^2m_e^2c^4}{\displaystyle \frac{Ee^2}{\sqrt{E^2m_e^2c^4}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}})]𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i2\pi Ee^2}{\sqrt{E^2m_e^2c^4}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi Ee^2}{\sqrt{m_e^2c^4E^2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}\sqrt{(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{z}})^2m_e^2c^4{\displaystyle \frac{j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}{z^2}}}𝑑z`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(Ez+e^2)^2m_e^2c^4z^2j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}}{z}}𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{e^4j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}+O(z)}{z}}𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`i2\pi \sqrt{e^4j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}=2\pi \sqrt{j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2e^4}`$
Because the integrand is a multiple-valued function, when the integral takes over the path $`L_{}`$ we have $`z=e^{i2\pi }re^{+0i}`$, thus

$$_L=_\gamma ^\delta \sqrt{e^{i2\pi }(\mathrm{})}=_\gamma ^\delta =_\delta ^\gamma =_L$$
(66)
For a further manifestation, to define $`zb=w=\rho e^{i\beta }`$, where

$$b=\frac{E^2+e^4m_e^2c^4r^2j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}{2Ee^2}$$
(67)
We have

$`{\displaystyle _L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2Ee^2}\sqrt{zb}}{z}}𝑑z`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2Ee^2}\sqrt{w}}{z}}𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2Ee^2\rho }e^{i\beta /2}}{z}}𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{L(\gamma \delta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2Ee^2\rho }e^{i(\beta 2\pi )/2}}{ze^{i2\pi }}}𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{L(\gamma \delta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2Ee^2\rho }e^{i\beta /2}}{z}}𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\gamma ^\delta }={\displaystyle _\delta ^\gamma }={\displaystyle _L}`$
The relation of $`z`$ and $`w`$ has shown in Fig.2(c), to note that $`w`$ rotates around zero with $`z`$.

$`{\displaystyle _L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle _L}+{\displaystyle _L})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle _{C_\gamma }}+{\displaystyle _{C_\delta }})`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi Ee^2}{\sqrt{m_e^2c^4E^2}}}+\pi \sqrt{j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2e^4}`$
Thus Eq.(51) becomes

$`\pm \pi s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{z}})^2m_e^2c^4{\displaystyle \frac{j^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}{z^2}}}𝑑r`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi E\alpha }{\sqrt{m_e^2c^4E^2}}}+\pi \sqrt{j^2\alpha ^2}`$
where $`\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c`$ is known as the fine structure constant. The left side of the last equation is required to take minus, then we obtain the positive energy levels given by

$$E=m_ec^2\left[1+\frac{\alpha ^2}{(\sqrt{j^2\alpha ^2}+s)^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(71)
According to Eq.(71), we find that the first branch and third branch in Eq.(62) are degenerated into the second branch for a fixed $`j`$. So we need only to define $`j=k+|m|`$. Because $`k0`$ , and $`j0`$ in Eq.(71), we find $`j=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$.

The result, Eq.(71), is completely the same as the calculation of Dirac wave equation, it is just the fine structure of hydrogen atom.

### 5.2 hydrogen atom in an uniform magnetic field

If we put the hydrogen atom into an external uniform magnetic field $`B`$ which is along $`z`$ axis with vector potential $`(A_r,A_\theta ,A_\phi )=(0,0,\frac{1}{2}r\mathrm{sin}\theta B)`$, then according to Eq.(40) the wave equation is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\psi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{r}})^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\theta }})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2c^2}}(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}})^2\psi ^2`$ (72)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{er\mathrm{sin}\theta B}{i2c\mathrm{}}}\psi )^2`$
By substituting $`\psi =R(r)X(\theta )\varphi (\phi )`$, we separate the above equation into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\phi }}\kappa \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{X}{\theta }})^2+[({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{sin}\theta r^2B}{i2c\mathrm{}}})^2+\xi (r)]X^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}})^2+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2c^2}}(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (r)}{r^2}}]R^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
Where we have used the unknown constant $`\kappa `$ and function $`\xi (r)`$ to connect these separated equations. Eq.(LABEL:d2) has the solution

$$\varphi =C_1e^{im\phi },\kappa =im,m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}$$
(76)
Expanding Eq.(LABEL:d3) and neglecting the term $`O(B^2)`$, we have a term $`\frac{mer^2B}{c\mathrm{}}`$ in it, by moving this term into Eq.(LABEL:d4) through $`\xi (r)=\lambda +\frac{mer^2B}{c\mathrm{}}`$, we obtain

$`({\displaystyle \frac{X}{\theta }})^2+[\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}]X^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r}})^2+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2c^2}}(E+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{meB}{c\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{r^2}}]R^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
The above two equations are the same as Eq.(LABEL:b3) and Eq.(LABEL:b4), except for the additional constant term $`meB/c\mathrm{}`$. After the similar calculation in the preceding section, we obtain the energy levels of hydrogen atom in the magnetic field given by

$$E=\sqrt{m_e^2c^4+mec\mathrm{}B}\left[1+\frac{\alpha ^2}{(\sqrt{j^2\alpha ^2}+s)^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(79)
### 5.3 spectroscopic notation

In the usual spectroscopic notation of quantum mechanics, four quantum numbers: $`n`$, $`l`$, $`m_l`$ and $`m_s`$ are used to specify the state of an electron in an atom. After the comparison, we get the relations between the usual notation and our notation.

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`j+s,s=0,1,\mathrm{};j=1,2,\mathrm{}.`$ (80)
$`l`$ $`=`$ $`j1,`$ (81)
$`\mathrm{max}(m_l)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(m)1`$ (82)
We find that $`j`$ takes over $`1,2,\mathrm{},n`$; for a fixed $`j`$ (or $`l`$), $`m`$ takes over $`(l+1),l,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{},l,l+1`$. In the present work, spin quantum number is absent.

### 5.4 Zeeman splitting

According to Eq.(79), for a fixed $`(n,l)`$, equivalent to $`(n,j=l+1)`$, the energy level of hydrogen atom will split into $`2l+3`$ energy levels in magnetic field, given by

$$E=(m_ec^2+\frac{me\mathrm{}B}{2m_ec})\left[1+\frac{\alpha ^2}{(\sqrt{j^2\alpha ^2}+s)^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}+O(B^2)$$
(83)
Considering $`m=(l+1),l,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{},l,l+1`$, this effect is equivalent to the usual Zeeman splitting in the usual quantum mechanics given by

$$E=E_{nl}+\frac{(m_l\pm 1)e\mathrm{}B}{2m_ec}$$
(84)
But our work works on it without spin concept.

### 5.5 angular momentum, Stern-Gerlach experiment and spin

From Eq.(38), the angular momentum of the electron in hydrogen atom is given by

$`𝐉`$ $`=`$ $`J_\phi 𝐞_\phi +J_z𝐞_z`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`rm_eu_\theta 𝐞_\phi +r\mathrm{sin}\theta m_eu_\phi 𝐞_z`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi }}(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\theta }})𝐞_\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi }}(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\phi }})𝐞_z`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\sqrt{\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}}𝐞_\phi +m\mathrm{}𝐞_z`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\sqrt{(k+|m|)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}}𝐞_\phi +m\mathrm{}𝐞_z`$
According to Eq.(71), there should be three ground states ($`j=1`$).

$`1`$ $`:`$ $`k=0,m=1,𝐉=i(\mathrm{cot}\theta )\mathrm{}𝐞_\phi +\mathrm{}𝐞_z`$ (86)
$`2`$ $`:`$ $`k=0,m=1,𝐉=i(\mathrm{cot}\theta )\mathrm{}𝐞_\phi \mathrm{}𝐞_z`$ (87)
$`3`$ $`:`$ $`k=1,m=0,𝐉=\mathrm{}𝐞_\phi `$ (88)
Why did the hydrogen atoms split into two branches in Stern-Gerlach experiment? To note that $`J_\phi \mathrm{}`$ when $`\theta 0,\pi `$ for the ground states1 and 2, maybe $`J_\phi `$ locks the alignment of the electrons with external magnetic fields along $`z`$-axis, considering the directions of Lorentz forces acting on the currents as shown in Fig.3 schematically (despite it is imaginary), so that the angular momenta $`J_z=\pm \mathrm{}`$ of the electrons can not be subject to external magnetic direction as the usual way. Conversely, the ground state 3 can rotates its orientation like a coil, disappeared within one of the two branches in Stern-Gerlach experiment, In the fact, maybe the ground state 3 has changed into the ground states 1 or 2 before it rotates to its usual destination because of its increasing or decreasing $`J_z`$. This explanation has drown an image for spin.

### 5.6 the shell of atom

In atom with many electrons, two electrons can form a pair with $`J_z=\pm \mathrm{}`$, the reason of pairing arises probably from the alignment of their $`J_\phi `$ and $`J_z`$, the situation can imagined as an analogy to the combination of the ground states 1 and 2 of hydrogen atom.

For a fixed $`l`$ (or $`j`$), $`m`$ takes over $`2l+3`$ values, thus the electrons with $`2l+3`$ single-states can only form $`2l+1`$ pair-states, as shown in Fig.4, the $`l`$-shell contains $`2(2l+1)`$ electrons.

Although the single state of $`m=0`$, like the ground state 3 of hydrogen atom, maybe unstable, it in a pair can be stable because it can align its $`J_\phi `$ with its counterpart electron.

Although the shell structure of atom based on our work is the same as the usual one, the present work predicts that hydrogen atom has $`2l+3`$ degenerate states for a fixed $`l`$.

### 5.7 an open problem

In order to meet the fine structure of hydrogen atom, we have chosen plus sign for $`k`$ in Eq.(48) and minus sign for $`s`$ in Eq.(51). In other words, there are more states we have not discussed yet, which correspond to minus sign for $`k`$ in Eq.(48) or plus sign for $`s`$ in Eq.(51). Two situations must be considered, there probably exists an unknown constraint forbidding the states, or experiment has not payed attention to observe the states, this is an open question.

## 6 Superconducting states

Now we return to superconducting states. In the preceding section we have devoted into hydrogen atom and spin subjects in details, the purpose is to establish full confidence in Eq.(38), re-given by

$$(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )\psi =i\mathrm{}_\mu \psi $$
(89)
In this section $`m`$ is the rest mass. The wave function can be rewritten in integral form as

$$\psi =e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu +i\theta }$$
(90)
Where $`\theta `$ is an integral constant, $`x_0`$ and $`x`$ are the initial point and final point of the integral with arbitrary path in the space-time.

Let us take the integration of Eq.(90) over a closed path $`L`$ in the space, at any instant $`t(dx_4=0)`$, the single-valued wave function of Eq.(90) requires

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_L(m𝐮+q𝐀)𝑑𝐥=2\pi bb=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}$$
(91)
Where $`d𝐥`$ is an element of the integral path.

### 6.1 quantized magnetic flux in superconducting ring

Let us take integral path $`L`$ in superconducting ring, because the electronic current is zero in the interior, i.e. $`𝐮=0`$, thus the magnetic flux through $`L`$ is given from 91 by

$$\varphi =_L𝐁𝑑\sigma =_L𝐀𝑑𝐥=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}b}{q}$$
(92)
Where $`d\sigma `$ is an element of area on the surface bounded by the integral path $`L`$. By experiment $`q=2e`$, the charge of an electron pair, thus the flux through the ring is quantized in integral multiples of $`\pi \mathrm{}b/e`$.

### 6.2 London equation

Let $`n`$ denote the density of electrons in superconductor, the electronic current is given by

$$𝐣=ne𝐮$$
(93)
Then Eq.(91) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{ne\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _L}(𝐣+{\displaystyle \frac{ne^2}{m}}𝐀)𝑑𝐥`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{ne\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _L}(\times 𝐣+{\displaystyle \frac{ne^2}{m}}𝐁)𝑑\sigma =2\pi s`$
If the closed integral path contains no vortex (or fluxoid), at where we obtain

$$\times 𝐣+\frac{ne^2}{m}𝐁=\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(95)
It is the well known London equation.

### 6.3 Meissner effect

According to a Maxwell equation

$$\times 𝐁=\mu _0𝐣$$
(96)
from London equation we obtain

$$^2𝐁=𝐁/\lambda _L^2$$
(97)
Where $`\lambda _L^2=m/(\mu _0ne^2)`$ is a constant called as the London penetration depth. Near the surface of superconductor, the magnetic field along the depth direction $`z`$ is given by

$$B(z)=B(0)\mathrm{exp}(z/\lambda _L)$$
(98)
Thus for superconductor, the London equation leads to the Meissner effect.

### 6.4 Josephson superconductor tunneling

Before we discuss Josepheson effect, we firstly discuss Aharonov-Bohm effect.

#### Aharonov-Bohm effect

Let us consider the modification of two slit experiment, as shown in Fig.5. Between the two slits there is located a tiny solenoid S, designed so that a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the figure can be produced in its interior. No magnetic field is allowed outside the solenoid, and the walls of the solenoid are such that no electron can penetrate to the interior. There are two paths $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ bypassing the solenoid from the electron gun to the screen, the wave function $`\psi `$ is given by

$$\psi =e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0(l_1)}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu }+e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0(l_2)}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu }$$
(99)
because $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ are equivalent for Eq.(90). The probability is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x)\psi ^{}(x)`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`2+e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0(l_1)}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0(l_2)}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu }`$
$`+e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0(l_2)}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{x_0(l_1)}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`2+2\mathrm{cos}[{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\mathrm{}}}(l_1l_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{x_0(l_1)}^x}qA_\mu dx_\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{x_0(l_2)}^x}qA_\mu dx_\mu ]`$
$`=`$ $`2+2\mathrm{cos}[{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\mathrm{}}}(l_1l_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{(l_1+\overline{l_2})}}qA_\mu 𝑑x_\mu ]`$
$`=`$ $`2+2\mathrm{cos}[{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\mathrm{}}}(l_1l_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{q\varphi }{\mathrm{}}}]`$
where $`\overline{l_2}`$ denotes the inverse path to the path $`l_2`$, $`\varphi `$ is the magnetic flux that passes through the surface between the paths $`l_1`$ and $`\overline{l_2}`$, and it is just the flux inside the solenoid.

Now, constructive (or destructive) interference occurs when

$$\frac{p}{\mathrm{}}(l_1l_2)+\frac{q\varphi }{\mathrm{}}=2\pi b(orb+\frac{1}{2})$$
(101)
where $`b`$ is an integer. We know that this effect is just the Aharonov-Bohm effect which was shown experimentally in 1960.

#### Josephson effect

Consider an insulator film occupying the space of rang $`(0,\delta )`$ in $`x`$-axis with an applied voltage $`V`$, according to Eq.(90), set the origin at $`x=0`$, the wave function of electron pair in the region $`x>\delta `$ can be calculated by taking the integral path $`l_1`$ across the insulator, it gives

$$\psi _1=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_0^\delta p𝑑x+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_\delta ^xp𝑑x+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_0^tqA_4𝑑x_4+i\theta _1}$$
(102)
the wave function of electron pair in the region $`x>\delta `$ can also be calculated by taking the integral path $`l_2`$ around the circuit without crossing the insulator, it gives

$$\psi _2=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_\delta ^xp𝑑x+i\theta _2}$$
(103)
To note that the electrons have the same momentum $`p`$ in the superconductors whereas have an imaginary momentum in the insulator, to denote $`_0^\delta p𝑑x=i\mathrm{}k\delta `$, we obtain the wave function

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1+\psi _2`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`e^{k\delta +\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_\delta ^xp𝑑x+\frac{i2eVt}{\mathrm{}}+i\theta _1}+e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_\delta ^xp𝑑x+i\theta _2}`$
According to Eq.(89), the superconducting current in $`x>\delta `$ region is given by

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`nqu={\displaystyle \frac{nq}{m}}p=i{\displaystyle \frac{q\mathrm{}}{2m}}(\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{x}})`$ (105)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{m}}pe^{k\delta }\mathrm{sin}[{\displaystyle \frac{2eVt}{\mathrm{}}}+i(\theta _1\theta _2)]`$
The result is just the Josephson tunneling effect, including DC Josephson effect and AC Josephson effect.

## 7 General superconducting states

It is easy to find that the electrons in Aharonov-Bohm experiment can regarded as being in a superconducting state because of lacking lattice-scattering, the similar situations like electron two split experiment etc. give us the same inspiration. Even the elections in an atom can also be regarded as in a superconducting state. The feeling becomes much strong when we recognize that the two electrons with up and down spins in an atom always form a pair in the sell of the atom. Under the guidance of the general superconducting states, we think that the electron pairs in atom must have the same mechanism with Cooper pairs in superconductor. The relativistic mechanism of superconductivity suggested in the present paper just satisfies this requirement.

## 8 Conclusion

According to the theory of relativity, the relativistic Coulomb’s force between an electron pair is composed of two parts, the main part is repulsive, while the rest part can be attractive in certain situations. The relativistic attraction of an electron pair provides a insight into the mechanism of superconductivity.

In superconductor, there are, probably at least, two kinds of collective motions which can eliminate the repulsion between two electrons and let the attraction being dominant, the first is the combination of lattice and electron gas, accounting for traditional superconductivity; the second is the electron gas themselves, accounting for high $`T_c`$ superconductivity.

In usual materials, there is a good balance between the repulsion and attraction of an electron pair, the electrons are regarded as free electrons so that Fermi gas theory plays very well. But in some materials, when the repulsion dominates electron pairs, the electron gas will has a behavior opposite to superconductivity.

The superconducting states are discussed in terms of relativistic quantum theory in the present paper, some significant results are obtained, including quantized magnetic flux, London equation, Meissner effect and Josephson effect.