text:
# Linear conductance in Coulomb-blockade quantum dots in the presence of interactions and spin

## I Introduction

In the Coulomb-blockade regime of quantum dots, the conductance of the dot exhibits peaks as a function of the gate voltage, where each peak corresponds to the tunneling of one more electron into the dot. Of particular interest are diffusive or ballistic chaotic dots, where the mesoscopic fluctuations of the conductance peaks and their spacings reflect the statistical nature of the ground-state wave function and energy of the isolated dot.alhassid00 ; aleiner02  The simplest model to describe Coulomb blockade is the constant-interaction (CI) model, in which the electrons occupy single-particle levels in the dot and the interaction is described by an electrostatic Coulomb energy that is constant for a fixed number of electrons. In this model, the conductance near a Coulomb-blockade peak at temperatures that are large compared with a typical tunneling width can be derived in a closed form using a master-equations approach.glazman88 ; beenakker91  This regime of sequential tunneling is relevant to most Coulomb-blockade experiments involving weakly-coupled dots.

At sufficiently low temperatures, the conductance through the dot is dominated by elastic processes. However, at finite temperature, the electrons in the dot may undergo inelastic scattering processes caused, for example, by electron-phonon or electron-electron interactions. In general, one may consider two limiting cases, depending on the relative magnitude of a typical elastic tunneling width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ of an electron into the dot, and a typical inelastic scattering width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ of electrons in the dot. In the so-called elastic limit, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and inelastic scattering processes in the dot can be ignored. In the opposite limit, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$, inelastic scattering occurs on such a short time scale that electrons in the dot are effectively thermalized immediately after an electron tunnels in or out of the dot.beenakker91  This limit will be called the rapid-thermalization limit, which in the literature is also sometimes referred to as the inelastic limit. Statistical properties of the conductance peaks were studied within the CI model in both elasticjalabert92 ; alhassid98  and rapid-thermalizationbeenakker01 ; rupp02 ; held02a  limits, as well as for intermediate situations.eisenberg02

However, recent experiments in almost-isolated Coulomb-blockade dots clearly indicate that it is necessary to take into account electron-electron interactions beyond the CI model.spacings  For such interactions, the eigenstates of the dot are no longer characterized by Slater determinants. An important question that arises is how to calculate the linear conductance through such a dot. In this work we provide an answer in the limit of sequential tunneling. We make the general assumption that both the thermal energy and the typical excitation energies in the dot are small compared with the charging energy. This defines the regime of Coulomb blockade, where in the vicinity of the $`N+1`$-st conductance peak only the manifolds of states with $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ electrons in the dot contribute to the conductance (the manifolds with an electron number different from either $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ are pushed away by the charging energy). Given the many-body eigenstates of the dot (with $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ electrons), their energies, and the transition widths between the states in the $`N`$\- and $`(N+1)`$-electron dot as an electron tunnels into the dot, we discuss the calculation of the linear conductance. This is done by introducing non-equilibrium probabilities of the dot to be in its various many-body states. These probabilities satisfy a set of rate equations describing the transitions between the many-body eigenstates. We consider stationary solutions in the linear-response approximation in both limits where inelastic scattering of electrons in the dot is weak (elastic limit) and strong (rapid-thermalization limit). In the elastic limit, the linearized rate equations cannot be solved in closed form in the general case, but there are several important cases where a closed solution exits. Such cases include sufficiently low temperatures where only ground-state to ground-state, or ground-state to excited-states transitions (of $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ electrons, respectively) contribute to the conductance. Another case where the rate equations can be solved in closed form at any temperature corresponds to a Hamiltonian for which the occupations of the orbital single-particle states are good quantum numbers. A particularly important such case corresponds to the universal Hamiltoniankurland00 ; aleiner02  in the limit of infinite Thouless conductance. This Hamiltonian includes a constant exchange interaction in addition to a constant charging energy.usaj01  We also consider the rapid-thermalization limit, where we can always obtain a closed form expression for the conductance.

Furthermore, when the Hamiltonian of the dot is spin-rotation invariant (as is the case of the Coulomb interaction), the expressions we find for the linear conductance can be simplified by carrying out explicitly the sum over the magnetic quantum numbers (in both the elastic and rapid-thermalization limits).

The outline of this paper is as follows: In Section II we introduce the basic assumptions and notation. In Section III we discuss the rate equations satisfied by the probabilities to find the dot in one of its many-body eigenstates with $`N`$ or $`N+1`$ electrons. We assume the elastic limit, where inelastic scattering of electrons in the dot is negligible. In Section IV we use linear-response theory to linearize these master equations in the stationary limit. A general expression for the linear conductance in terms of the solution to the rate equations is derived in Section V. We show that if detailed balance is satisfied for each pair of many-body eigenstates \[in the $`N`$\- and $`(N+1)`$-electron dots, respectively\], then the master equations and consequently the conductance can be solved in closed form. Furthermore, the corresponding expressions are shown to be simplified for Hamiltonians that are invariant with respect to spin rotations. Physically relevant cases where such closed solutions exist are discussed in Section VI, and include the case of the universal Hamiltonian in the limit of infinite Thouless conductance. In Section VII we solve the rate equations and derive a closed form for the conductance in the case where the inelastic scattering width is much larger than the elastic width (rapid-thermalization limit). Finally, in Section VIII we summarize the main results of this paper.

## II Model

We consider an almost-isolated quantum dot described by a Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ that includes a one-body part and a two-body interaction. The dot is weakly coupled to leads, and we assume the limit $`kT\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a typical transition width of an electron from the leads into the dot. In this limit we can ignore the coherence between the dot and the leads and use a rate-equations approach to study the transport through the dot. Furthermore, we assume the Coulomb energy $`e^2/C`$ to be much larger than the thermal energy $`kT`$. In this limit, the linear conductance of the dot exhibits Coulomb-blockade peaks. When the gate voltage $`V_\mathrm{g}`$ is tuned in the vicinity of a Coulomb-blockade peak, the number of electrons in the dot can be either $`N`$ or $`N+1`$. All manifolds with an electron number different from either $`N`$ or $`N+1`$ are pushed away by the charging energy.

The rate equations have been solved in the CI model for a single spin-degenerate levelglazman88  and for any number of single-particle levels.beenakker91  In the CI model, the two-body interaction is modeled by a constant charging energy of an object with capacitance $`C`$ and charge $`Ne`$. Here, we derive and solve the rate equations in the presence of interactions beyond the charging energy, where the many-body states of the dots are no longer Slater determinants.

We denote the many-body eigenstates of the dot with $`N`$ electrons by $`i`$, and their respective energies by $`\epsilon _i^{(N)}`$. Similarly, the states of the dot with $`N+1`$ electrons are labeled as $`j`$ and the corresponding energies are $`\epsilon _j^{(N+1)}`$. $`M_N`$ and $`M_{N+1}`$ denote, respectively, the total number of the $`N`$\- and $`(N+1)`$-electron states considered.

Of particular interest are cases where the dot’s Hamiltonian is spin-rotation invariant. This requires the absence of a spin-orbit interaction such that the single-particle energies of the electrons in the dot $`ϵ_\lambda `$ are spin-degenerate. In addition, for spin-rotation invariance to be valid, the matrix elements of the two-body interaction may depend only on the orbital states but not on the spin indices, as it is the case for the Coulomb interaction. We then have

$$[\widehat{H},\widehat{𝐒}^2]=0\text{and}[\widehat{H},\widehat{S}_z]=0.$$
(1)
The many-body eigenstates of the dot can be characterized by the good quantum numbers of the spin $`S`$ and its projection $`S_z=M`$. The remaining quantum numbers, in addition to the total number of electrons $`N`$, will be labeled by $`\alpha `$. Thus the eigenstates of the dot with $`n`$ electrons are given by $`i=(\alpha ,S,M)`$, and their respective energies $`\epsilon _{\alpha S}^{(N)}`$ are independent of $`M`$. The states of the dot with $`N+1`$ electrons are similarly labeled by $`j=(\alpha ^{},S^{},M^{})`$, and their corresponding energies are $`\epsilon _{\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{(N+1)}`$. An example of a spin-rotation invariant Hamiltonian is the recently proposed universal Hamiltonian.kurland00 ; aleiner02

## III Rate equations

We assume that a potential difference $`V`$ is applied between the two leads (source and drain) at temperature $`T`$. Fractions $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$ of this potential difference, with

$$\eta _\mathrm{l}+\eta _\mathrm{r}=1,$$
(2)
fall between the dot and the left lead, and the right lead and the dot, respectively. As a result a current $`I`$ flows through the dot and various eigenstates of the dot can be occupied with different probabilities. We denote the non-equilibrium probability for the dot to be in a particular $`n`$-electron state $`i`$ by $`P_i^{(N)}`$. Since we consider situations in which the dot can only be occupied by $`N`$ or $`N+1`$ electrons, we require the normalization

$$\underset{i}{}P_i^{(N)}+\underset{j}{}P_j^{(N+1)}=1.$$
(3)
We further assume that energy is conserved in the tunneling between the dot and the leads, neglecting virtual transitions that are of higher order in the tunneling widths. Denoting the transition widths between the $`N`$-electron state $`i`$ and the $`(N+1)`$-electron state $`j`$ involving an electron tunneling into the dot from the left (right) lead by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}`$), we can write the following rate equations for the probabilities $`P_i^{(N)}`$ and $`P_j^{(N+1)}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_i^{(N)}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}P_j^{(N+1)}[(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{l})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}]P_i^{(N)}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})\text{for all }i,`$ (4a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_j^{(N+1)}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_i^{(N)}(f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})P_j^{(N+1)}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{l})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}]\text{for all }j.`$ (4b)
The Fermi-Dirac function of an electron in the left (right) lead is evaluated at a suitable energy that can be found from energy conservation of the transition between states $`i`$ and $`j`$, and is denoted by $`f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}`$ ($`f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}`$). In the presence of a gate voltage $`V_\mathrm{g}`$, the energy of the $`n`$-electron dot in state $`i`$ is given by $`\epsilon _i^{(N)}Ne\zeta V_\mathrm{g}`$. Here $`\zeta C_\mathrm{g}/C`$, with $`C_\mathrm{g}`$ being the dot capacitance with respect to the gate, and $`C`$ being the full dot capacitance. Thus the energy of an electron (relative to the Fermi energy $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ in the leads) in the left (right) lead that tunnels into an $`N`$-electron dot in state $`i`$ to form an $`(N+1)`$-electron dot in state $`j`$ is given by

$$\epsilon _{ij}=\epsilon _j^{(N+1)}\epsilon _i^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F},$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F}e\zeta V_\mathrm{g}+ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is an effective Fermi energy. Taking into account the bias-potential drop between the dot and each lead, we have

$$f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}f(\epsilon _{ij}+\eta _\mathrm{l}eV)\text{and}f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}f(\epsilon _{ij}\eta _\mathrm{r}eV),$$
(6)
where the Fermi-Dirac function is defined by $`f(x)=[1+\mathrm{exp}(\beta x)]^1`$ with $`\beta =1/kT`$.

We note that we can choose any values of $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$ satisfying Eq. (2), but that the final result for the physical quantities (e.g. the conductance) must be independent of this choice (see the Appendix for a proof).

## IV Linear response

To calculate the conductance, we are interested in finding stationary solutions of Eqs. (4), i.e. non-equilibrium probabilities $`P_i^{(N)}`$ and $`P_j^{(N+1)}`$ that are independent in time,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_i^{(N)}}{t}}=0`$ $`\text{for all }i,`$ (7a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_j^{(N+1)}}{t}}=0`$ $`\text{for all }j.`$ (7b)
Furthermore, to calculate the linear conductance, we are interested in calculating the current for small bias voltages $`V`$, where the equations can be solved in linear-response theory. To that end, we linearize Eqs. (4) in $`V`$. This involves an expansion of the Fermi-Dirac distribution functions $`f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}`$, $`f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}`$ as well as the probabilities $`P_i^{(N)}`$ and $`P_j^{(N+1)}`$ around their equilibrium values. The Fermi-Dirac functions are expanded up to first order as

$$f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}=f_{ij}+\eta _\mathrm{l}eVf_{ij}^{}\mathrm{and}f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}=f_{ij}\eta _\mathrm{r}eVf_{ij}^{},$$
(8)
where we used the short-hand notation $`f_{ij}=f(\epsilon _{ij})`$. The probabilities $`P_i^{(N)}`$ and $`P_j^{(N+1)}`$ are expanded around their equilibrium values $`\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}`$ which they would attain if the bias voltage would be zero and the dot would be in thermal equilibrium,

$`P_i^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}[1+eV\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}],`$ (9a)
$`P_j^{(N+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}[1+eV\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}],`$ (9b)
in terms of new variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}`$. The equilibrium probabilities can be expressed explicitly in terms of the eigenenergies $`\epsilon _i^{(N)}`$ and $`\epsilon _j^{(N+1)}`$ of the dot with $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ electrons,

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}=\frac{e^{\beta (\epsilon _i^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F}N)}}{Z}$$
(10a)
and
$$\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}=\frac{e^{\beta [\epsilon _j^{(N+1)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F}(N+1)]}}{Z},$$
(10b)
with the partition sum

$$Z=\underset{i}{}e^{\beta (\epsilon _i^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F}N)}+\underset{j}{}e^{\beta [\epsilon _j^{(N+1)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F}(N+1)]}.$$
(11)
The equilibrium distribution is in principle grand-canonical with a chemical potential equal to the Fermi energy $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ (at temperature $`T`$) in the leads, but because of the presence of charging energy only two values of the electron numbers are allowed. To find a set of equations for the new variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}`$, we substitute the expansions (8) and (9) into the r.h.s. of the rate equations (4) and equate the results to zero to ensure stationarity. Keeping only the terms linear in the bias voltage $`V`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}[\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}(1f_{ij})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})f_{ij}^{}(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]`$ (12a)
$`=\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}[\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f_{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f_{ij}^{}(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]\text{for all }i,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}[\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}f_{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})f_{ij}^{}(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]`$ (12b)
$`=\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}[\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1f_{ij})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f_{ij}^{}(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]\text{for all }j.`$
The above equations can be simplified utilizing the following three relations. From the definition (10) of the equilibrium probabilities, it follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}=\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}e^{\beta \epsilon _{ij}},$$
(13)
while the Fermi-Dirac distribution satisfies

$$[1f(x)]e^{\beta x}=f(x)$$
(14)
and

$$f^{}(x)=\beta f(x)/[1+\mathrm{exp}(\beta x)].$$
(15)
Using Eqs. (13), (14), and (15), we arrive at the transformed rate equations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f_{ij}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)})+(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for all }i,`$ (16a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1f_{ij})[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)})+(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for all }j.`$ (16b)
Equations (16) represent a system of $`M_N+M_{N+1}`$ linear equations for $`M_N+M_{N+1}`$ unknowns. However, only $`M_N+M_{N+1}1`$ of these equations are linearly independent. Hence, the solutions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}`$ are determined only up to an additive constant. This constant is fixed by imposing the constraint

$$\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}+\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}=0,$$
(17)
that follows from the normalization condition (3). In general, it is necessary to solve Eqs. (16) numerically. These equations represent sets of detailed-balance equations. However, it is possible to find analytic solutions in cases where a detailed-balance equation holds for each pair of states $`i`$ and $`j`$ individually, i.e. in cases where each term in the square brackets of Eqs. (16) vanishes. This condition is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}=\frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}\text{for any }i\text{ and }j.$$
(18)
We emphasize that there are $`M_NM_{N+1}`$ equations (18) for only $`M_N+M_{N+1}`$ unknowns, so in the general case it is not possible to satisfy (18). However, there are a number of important cases where a solution does exist, as we discuss in Section VI. A solution to Eqs. (18), when it exists, does not depend on temperature and leads to an expression for the conductance in which the dependence on temperature and on decay widths factorizes.

## V Linear conductance

The linear conductance $`G`$ is defined as the ratio $`I/V`$ in the limit $`V0`$. The current through the dot can be expressed in terms of the quantities considered in the master-equation approach. In this framework, we can calculate for example the current $`I`$ through the left tunneling contact which equals the current through the dot and through the right contact,

$$I=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\underset{ij}{}[P_i^{(N)}f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}P_j^{(N+1)}(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{l})]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}.$$
(19)
Substituting the expansions in Eqs. (8) and (9) into Eq. (19), we find the elastic linear conductance

$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f_{ij}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\eta _\mathrm{l})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}.$$
(20)
Although $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ appears explicitly in Eq. (20), the linear conductance is independent of $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$. This must be so on physical grounds, and a formal proof is provided in the Appendix.

In general, we have to solve Eqs. (16) for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}`$ and substitute their values in Eq. (20). However, in the special case where Eqs. (18) hold, the conductance is given by the closed form

$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f_{ij}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}},$$
(21a)
or equivalently
$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}(1f_{ij})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}.$$
(21b)
Notice that the parameters $`\eta _{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ no longer appear in the conductance formula. The independence of the conductance from the values of $`\eta _{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$, which holds true in general (cf. Appendix), becomes apparent in this special case where an explicit formula can be given. For the conductance in Eqs. (21), the temperature dependence of the contribution from each pair of states in the $`N`$-electron and $`(N+1)`$-electron dots is independent from the transition widths.

So far, the spin symmetries have not been taken into account in the derivation of the rate equations and the conductance. If this is done, the sum over the many-body states $`i`$ and $`j`$ can be further simplified. For two many-body states $`i=(\alpha ,S,M)`$ and $`j=(\alpha ^{},S^{},M^{})`$, the associated partial decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}|\alpha ^{}S^{}M^{}|\psi _m^{}(𝐫_{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}})|\alpha SM|^2,$$
(22)
where the operator $`\psi _m^{}(𝐫_\mathrm{l})`$ \[$`\psi _m^{}(𝐫_\mathrm{r})`$\] creates an electron with spin projection $`m`$ at the left (right) point contact at $`𝐫_\mathrm{l}`$ ($`𝐫_\mathrm{r}`$), and we have introduced overall coupling strengths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ at the left and right point contact. The spin selection rules require $`m=M^{}M`$ and $`S^{}=|S\pm 1/2|`$ for the matrix element in Eq. (22) not to vanish. For a Hamiltonian which is invariant with respect to spin rotations, we can use the Wigner-Eckart theorem to factorize the matrix element in Eq. (22) into a Clebsch-Gordan (CG) coefficient and a reduced matrix element that is independent of the spin-projection quantum numbers $`M`$, $`M^{}`$, and $`m`$,

$`\alpha ^{}S^{}M^{}|\psi _m^{}(𝐫)|\alpha SM`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2S^{}+1}}}(SM\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2m|S^{}M^{})(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫)\alpha S)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`(1)^{S^{}M^{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}S^{}& 1/2& S\\ M^{}& m& M\end{array}\right)(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫)\alpha S).`$
For completeness, we have given the relation in Eq. (25) both in terms of a CG coefficient (first line) and a Wigner 3$`j`$-symbol (second line). For a given pair of many-body states $`i`$ and $`j`$, the decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}`$ involve the same CG coefficient. In Eq. (18), the CG coefficients in the ratio on the r.h.s. cancel and we are left with

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}=\frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^\mathrm{l}|(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫_l)\alpha S)|^2\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^\mathrm{r}|(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫_r)\alpha S)|^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^\mathrm{l}|(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫_l)\alpha S)|^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^\mathrm{r}|(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫_r)\alpha S)|^2}.$$
(26)
Thus, if solutions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}`$ exist that satisfy Eq. (18), they will be independent of the spin projection $`M`$ or $`M^{}`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha S}^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{(N+1)}`$. Defining reduced decay widths

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}|(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫_{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}})\alpha S)|^2,$$
(27)
conditions (26) can be rewritten in a form in which the magnetic quantum numbers disappear,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha S}^{(N)}=\frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}.$$
(28)
Using the reduced widths in the expression (21) for the linear conductance, we have

$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\underset{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}{}\underset{MM^{}m}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha S}^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}})\frac{1}{2S^{}+1}|(SM\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2m|S^{}M^{})|^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}.$$
(29)
Taking advantage of the unitarity of the CG, $`_{Mm}|(SM\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2m|S^{}M^{})|^2=1`$, we can write as our final result for the linear conductance

$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\underset{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha S}^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{\alpha ^{}S^{},\alpha S})\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}.$$
(30)
Instead of using the reduced widths defined in Eq. (27), it is possible to express the conductance in terms of the widths for the maximally-projected spin states (i.e. $`M=S`$ and $`M^{}=S^{}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha SS,\alpha ^{}S^{}S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}.$$
(31)
The reduced matrix elements in Eq. (27) are non-zero only for $`S^{}=S\pm 1/2`$ and, using the corresponding CG coefficients, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}=[2\mathrm{max}(S,S^{})+1]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}.$$
(32)
## VI Explicit solutions in the limit of elastic scattering

In general, it is not possible to find a closed solution for the conductance in the limit of elastic scattering, and Eqs. (16) have to be solved numerically. However, in the following we list four important cases where explicit solutions to Eqs. (26) or more generally to Eqs. (16) exist and the conductance is given by a closed expression.

### VI.1 Ground-state transition at low temperatures

At low enough temperatures, only the transition between the ground states of the $`n`$\- and $`(N+1)`$-electron dots \[$`(N,S)(N+1,S^{})`$\] provides an important contribution to the conductance. It is then sufficient to consider the two ground-state manifolds $`(N,S)`$ and $`(N+1,S^{})`$ which are respectively $`(2S+1)`$\- and $`(2S^{}+1)`$-fold degenerate. In this case, there is only one equation (26) and a solution can always be found;spin-degeneracy  the two variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}^{(N+1)}`$ are uniquely determined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}^{(N+1)}=\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{(N)}\frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}$$
(33)
and by the normalization condition (17). The linear conductance then yields

$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\frac{[2\mathrm{max}(S,S^{})+1]f(\epsilon _S^{}^{(N+1)}\epsilon _S^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F})}{(2S+1)+(2S^{}+1)e^{\beta (\epsilon _S^{}^{(N+1)}\epsilon _S^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F})}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S,S^{}}^\mathrm{r}},$$
(34)
where the widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S,S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ correspond to the maximally-projected spin states with $`M=S`$ and $`M^{}=S^{}`$ \[cf. Eqs. (31) and (32)\]. According to Eq. (34), the functional form of the conductance (versus the effective Fermi energy) does not depend on tunneling widths. In particular, $`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ is maximized when the effective Fermi energy $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F}e\zeta V_\mathrm{g}+ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is tuned to

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{F},\mathrm{max}}=\epsilon _S^{}^{(N+1)}\epsilon _S^{(N)}\frac{kT}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2S^{}+1}{2S+1}\right).$$
(35)
### VI.2 Ground-state–to–excited-states transitions

We consider only a single state in either the $`N`$\- or the $`(N+1)`$-electron system and allow for any number of states in the other system. This is useful at low temperatures, when for an even number of electrons the lowest states in the spin sectors of $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$ can be close in energy. The approximation of the previous paragraph may then be poor even at very low temperatures. For example, one might consider the transitions $`(N,S=1/2)(N+1,\alpha ^{},S^{})`$ with $`S^{}=0`$ and $`1`$. The variables associated to the $`(N+1)`$-electrons state are chosen as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{(N+1)}=\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{(N)}\frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}},$$
(36)
and the variable $`\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{(N)}`$ is then fixed by the normalization condition (17). Clearly, Eqs. (36) solve Eqs. (26) for all $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the conductance has the form (30).

### VI.3 Systems with good orbital occupation numbers

We define $`n_\lambda =n_{\lambda +}+n_\lambda `$ to be the total occupation of the (doubly-degenerate) single-particle orbital $`\lambda `$, i.e. the sum of the number of spin-up and spin-down particles in that orbital. Both $`n_{\lambda +}`$ and $`n_\lambda `$ can take the value 0 or 1, hence $`n_\lambda `$ obtains the values 0, 1 or 2. We will show below that Eqs. (28) have a solution when all $`n_\lambda `$ are good quantum numbers. For a given pair $`(\alpha ,S)`$ and $`(\alpha ^{},S^{})`$ only one term $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$ in $`\psi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫)=_\lambda \psi _\lambda (𝐫)a_{\lambda \sigma }^{}`$ will then contribute to the respective matrix element

$`(\alpha ^{}S^{}\psi ^{}(𝐫)\alpha S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\psi _\lambda (𝐫)(\alpha ^{}S^{}a_\lambda ^{}\alpha S)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`\psi _{\lambda _0}(𝐫)(\alpha ^{}S^{}a_{\lambda _0}^{}\alpha S).`$
Clearly, if more than one orbital $`\lambda `$ contribute to the sum in Eq. (37), then the occupations cannot be good quantum numbers in the final state $`\alpha ^{}`$. Since the dependence of the reduced matrix element in Eq. (37) on the point contact at $`𝐫`$ is only through the wave function $`\psi _{\lambda _0}(𝐫)`$, we have

$$\frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}}=\frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{r}},$$
(38)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}|\psi _\lambda (𝐫_{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}})|^2$$
(39)
are the single-particle decay widths.

We now argue that Eqs. (26) have a solution given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha S}^{(m)}={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{r}}}n_\lambda (\alpha ,S)`$ (40)
$`\text{for }m=N,N+1,`$
where $`n_\lambda (\alpha ,S)`$ are the single-particle level occupation numbers of the states with quantum numbers $`\alpha `$ and $`S`$ \[note that the label $`\alpha `$ includes all the good quantum numbers $`\{n_\lambda \}=(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{})`$ plus any additional quantum numbers required to distinguish between states with the same occupations $`\{n_\lambda \}`$ and spin $`S`$\]. Since two manifolds of states $`(\alpha ,S)`$ and $`(\alpha ^{},S^{})`$ can only be connected by changing the occupation of a particular orbital $`\lambda _0`$ by a single particle, we have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha S}^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{(N+1)}`$ (41)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^\mathrm{r}}}[n_\lambda (\alpha ,S)n_\lambda (\alpha ^{},S^{})]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{r}}}.`$
Thus Eqs. (28) can be indeed satisfied by (40). For the conductance, we obtain the expression

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha S}{\alpha ^{}S^{}}}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha S}^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}})`$ (42)
$`\times |(\alpha ^{}S^{}a_{\lambda _0}^{}\alpha S)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda _0}^\mathrm{r}}},`$
where the orbital $`\lambda _0`$ depends on both the manifolds $`(\alpha ,S)`$ and $`(\alpha ^{},S^{})`$. Of course, only manifolds that are connected by the addition of an electron to a single-particle orbital contribute to the sum in Eq. (42); i.e. the occupations $`\{n_\lambda (\alpha ^{},S^{})\}`$ of the manifold $`(\alpha ^{},S^{})`$ can only differ for one orbital and by one unit from the occupations $`\{n_\lambda (\alpha ,S)\}`$ of the manifold $`(\alpha ,S)`$. An expression similar to (42) (but including explicit sums over the magnetic quantum numbers) was discussed in Ref. usaj01, .

An important example of a Hamiltonian in the class discussed here is the so-called universal Hamiltonian in the limit of the Thouless conductance $`g_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{}`$,

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{\lambda \sigma }{}ϵ_\lambda a_{\lambda \sigma }^{}a_{\lambda \sigma }+\frac{e^2}{2C}\widehat{n}^2J_S\widehat{𝐒}^2,$$
(43)
where $`\widehat{𝐒}=_\lambda \widehat{𝐒}_\lambda `$ with $`\widehat{𝐒}_\lambda =_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}a_{\lambda \sigma }^{}𝝈_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}a_{\lambda \sigma ^{}}`$ is the total-spin operator of the dot and $`𝝈`$ is the vector of the three $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrices. Since $`[\widehat{n}_\lambda ,\widehat{𝐒}_\lambda ]=0`$, the Hamiltonian (43) is invariant under spin rotations and characterized by the good quantum numbers $`\{n_\lambda \},S,`$ and $`M`$. The conductance through a weakly-coupled dot with a Hamiltonian (43) is then given by Eq. (42).

### VI.4  Systems with degenerate ground states

In this subsection, we consider the case of low temperatures, when only transitions between the ground states with $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ electrons in the dot are allowed, and these ground states are $`M_N`$\- and $`M_{N+1}`$-fold degenerate, respectively. This case is more general than the similar case of Section VI.1, since the degeneracy is not necessarily the usual spin degeneracy, and the transition widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ can be arbitrary and are not necessarily related by a Wigner-Eckart theorem. Although we cannot write a closed solution for $`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ in this more general case, the degeneracy of the levels participating in the transport process allows for significant simplification of the expression for $`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ \[as compared with the general expression given by Eqs. (16), (17), and (20)\].

The level degeneracy allows us to reduce the rate equations (16) to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)})`$
$`+(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]=0`$ $`\text{for all }i,`$ (44a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)})`$
$`+(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]=0`$ $`\text{for all }j.`$ (44b)
As mentioned in Section IV, only $`M_N+M_{N+1}1`$ of these $`M_N+M_{N+1}`$ equations are linearly independent. The equation needed to determine a unique solution is given by Eq. (17). In the special case discussed here, the equilibrium probabilities for $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ electrons are independent of the states $`i`$ and $`j`$, respectively, and Eq. (17) simplifies to

$$\stackrel{~}{P}^{(N)}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}+\stackrel{~}{P}^{(N+1)}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}=0,$$
(45)
where we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{P}^{(N)}=\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}`$ for all $`i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}^{(N+1)}=\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}`$ for all $`j`$. In particular

$$\stackrel{~}{P}^{(N)}=\frac{1}{M_N+M_{N+1}e^{\beta (\epsilon ^{(N+1)}\epsilon ^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F})}},$$
(46)
where $`\epsilon ^{(N)}=\epsilon _i^{(N)}`$ for all $`i`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(N+1)}=\epsilon _j^{(N+1)}`$ for all $`j`$.

Using Eq. (46), the general expression (20) for the conductance reduces to

$`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\epsilon ^{(N+1)}\epsilon ^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F})}{M_N+M_{N+1}e^{\beta (\epsilon ^{(N+1)}\epsilon ^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mathrm{F})}}}`$ (47)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\eta _\mathrm{l})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}.`$
Here, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}`$ are a solution to Eqs. (44). These equations do not depend on the temperature, and we can therefore choose a private solution $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{(N+1)}`$ that is temperature-independent and determined solely by the tunneling widths. The general solution of Eqs. (44) is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i^{(N)}+c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{(N+1)}+c`$, where $`c`$ is a constant. The solution that satisfies the normalization condition (45) is the one with $`c=(\stackrel{~}{P}^{(N)}_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i^{(N)}+\stackrel{~}{P}^{(N+1)}_j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{(N+1)})`$. While this constant $`c`$ depends on temperature, it drops out in the final expression for the conductance, thus making the sum on the r.h.s. of Eq. (47) temperature-independent.

The conductance in Eq. (47) factorizes into two contributions. The sum over $`i`$ and $`j`$ is completely determined by the tunneling widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ and is independent of temperature and the effective Fermi energy (it is also independent of $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$ as is shown in the Appendix). The prefactor of the sum on the r.h.s. of Eq. (47) does not depend on the tunneling widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ and contains the full dependence on the temperature and Fermi energy. This prefactor determines the functional dependence of the conductance peak on the gate voltage. Similar to Eq. (35) in Section VI.1, the maximum of $`G_{\mathrm{el}}`$ is attained when the effective Fermi energy is tuned to

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{F},\mathrm{max}}=\epsilon ^{(N+1)}\epsilon ^{(N)}\frac{kT}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_{N+1}}{M_N}\right).$$
(48)
Eqs. (44) need to be solved numerically. An exception is the case discussed in Section VI.1, where the dot has spin-rotation symmetry and the degeneracy of the ground state corresponds to the various values of the spin projection $`M`$. In this case Eqs. (44) can be solved in closed form \[see Eq. (33)\], and the linear conductance (47) reduces then to Eq. (34).

## VII The rapid-thermalization limit

The above derivation of the linear conductance has been done under the assumption of dominantly elastic scattering, which is a good approximation at sufficiently low temperatures. Although the exact temperature dependence of inelastic scattering events is not well understood, they should become more relevant with increasing temperature, such that their width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ will eventually be of comparable size to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$. We therefore consider in this Section the rapid-thermalization limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}`$.

We denote by $`P(N)`$ the probability of the dot to be in a $`N`$-electron state, and by $`P(i|N)`$ the conditional probability of the dot to be in a particular many-body state $`i`$ given the dot is occupied by $`N`$ electrons. In general

$$P_i^{(N)}=P(i|N)P(N).$$
(49)
In the rapid-thermalization limit, the conditional probabilities $`P(i|N)`$ and $`P(j|N+1)`$ are always given by their thermal equilibrium values $`\stackrel{~}{P}(i|N)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}(j|N+1)`$, respectively. It is then only the probabilities $`P(N)`$ and $`P(N+1)`$ that obtain non-equilibrium values by a finite bias voltage $`V`$. These probabilities satisfy the following rate equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P(N)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`P(N+1){\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}(j|N+1)[(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{l})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}]P(N){\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}(i|N)[f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}],`$ (50a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P(N+1)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`P(N){\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}(i|N)[f_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+f_{ij}^\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}]P(N+1){\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}(j|N+1)[(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{l})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+(1f_{ij}^\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}].`$ (50b)
As in the elastic case, we are interested in stationary solutions $`P(N)/t=P(N+1)/t=0`$, where the rate at which electrons tunnel onto the dot ($`NN+1`$) is equal to the rate at which electrons tunnel off the dot ($`N+1N`$). For a small voltage $`V`$, we can expand these probabilities around their equilibrium values $`\stackrel{~}{P}(N)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}(N+1)`$ to first order in $`V`$,

$`P(N)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{P}(N)[1+eV\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}],`$ (51a)
$`P(N+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{P}(N+1)[1+eV\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}],`$ (51b)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}`$ are unknown variables. We observe that while in the elastic limit there were $`M_N+M_{N+1}`$ unknown variables, in the inelastic limit we are left with a considerably simpler situation of only two unknown variables. Consequently, an explicit expression for the conductance can always be given in the inelastic limit.

In analogy to the elastic case, we proceed by substituting linear expansions in Eqs. (8) and (51) into Eqs. (50), and imposing stationarity. Collecting the terms that are independent of the bias voltage $`V`$, we obtain the usual detailed-balance equation at equilibrium. Keeping only terms linear in $`V`$, we arrive at

$`\stackrel{~}{P}(N+1){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}(j|N+1)[\beta (1f_{ij})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}f_{ij}^{}(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}(N){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}(i|N)[\beta f_{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}+f_{ij}^{}(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]=0.`$
Using the equilibrium relations $`\stackrel{~}{P}(N)\stackrel{~}{P}(i|N)=\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}(N+1)\stackrel{~}{P}(j|N+1)=\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}`$, together with Eqs. (13), (14), and (15), we can rewrite Eq. (52) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f_{ij}[(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})`$
$`(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (53)
The solution for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}`$ (up to an arbitrary additive constant) is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}=\frac{_{ij}P_i^{(N)}f_{ij}(\eta _\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\eta _\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})}{_{ij}P_i^{(N)}f_{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})}.$$
(54)
The additive constant is determined by the normalization condition $`\stackrel{~}{P}(N)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}+\stackrel{~}{P}(N+1)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}=0`$.

To find the linear conductance $`G_{\mathrm{therm}}`$ in the limit of rapid-thermalization, we substitute the expansions in Eqs. (8) and (51) in the general expression for the linear-response current in Eq. (19). We obtain

$$G_{\mathrm{therm}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N+1)}\eta _\mathrm{l})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}.$$
(55)
With the solution in Eq. (54), we obtain a closed expression for the rapid-thermalization conductance

$$G_{\mathrm{therm}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\frac{(_{ij}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l})\left(_{kl}\stackrel{~}{P}_k^{(N)}f_{kl}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}\right)}{_{rs}\stackrel{~}{P}_r^{(N)}f_{rs}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^\mathrm{r})}.$$
(56)
As in the elastic case, we can exploit the spin symmetries to perform explicitly the summation over the spin projections $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$,

$$\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}=\underset{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha S}^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{\alpha ^{}S^{},\alpha S})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}.$$
(57)
This yields as a final result for the conductance in the case of strong inelastic scattering

$$G_{\mathrm{therm}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\frac{\left(\underset{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha S}^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}\right)\left(\underset{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha S}^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r}\right)}{(\underset{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha S}^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{\alpha S,\alpha ^{}S^{}})(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}^\mathrm{r})}.$$
(58)
## VIII Summary and conclusion

We define

$`X_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f(\epsilon _{ij})X_{ij}`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}[1f(\epsilon _{ij})]X_{ij},`$
where $`X_{ij}`$ is a quantity that depends on the many-body states $`i`$ and $`j`$ of the $`N`$\- and $`(N+1)`$-electron dots, respectively. The equilibrium probabilities $`\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}`$ to find the dot in states $`i`$ and $`j`$ are given by Eqs. (10) and (11), while the energy difference $`\epsilon _{ij}`$ is defined in Eq. (5).

In the rapid-thermalization limit, the conductance of the almost-isolated dot is given by

$$G_{\mathrm{therm}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}},$$
(60)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}`$) are the partial transition widths between the states $`i`$ and $`j`$ involving the tunneling of an electron from the left (right) lead into the dot.

In the elastic limit, a closed solution is not possible in the general case. The conductance can be calculated by solving the linear equations (16) for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}`$ and then substituting in the expression (20). However, there are several important cases where a closed solution is possible, including the constant-exchange-interaction model (i.e. the universal Hamiltonian in the limit of infinite Thouless conductance). In these cases

$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r}}.$$
(61)
When the Hamiltonian is invariant under spin rotations, these expressions can be simplified by carrying out explicitly the summation over the magnetic quantum numbers. The many-body levels of the $`N`$ and $`(N+1)`$-electron dots are now characterized by the quantum numbers $`\alpha ,S,M`$ and $`\alpha ^{},S^{},M^{}`$ and the respective energies are independent of $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$. Equations (60) and (61) are now valid with the reduced widths $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha S\alpha ^{}S^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$ replacing the widths $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha SM\alpha ^{}S^{}M^{}}^{\mathrm{l},\mathrm{r}}`$, and the summation in Eq. (59) carried over $`\alpha S`$ and $`\alpha ^{}S^{}`$ only (but not over $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$).

In conclusion, we have solved the rate equations and found the linear conductance in the presence of interactions in the dot (beyond the charging energy). In particular, we have taken into account the spin degrees of freedom of the dot and we showed the simplifications that occur when the dot’s Hamiltonian is invariant under spin rotations. Both the limits of dominantly elastic scattering and rapid thermalization are discussed. This work generalizes the solutions of Ref. beenakker91,  that were derived in the limit of non-interacting electrons (except for a constant charging energy).

## Acknowledgments

The work at Yale was supported in part by the Department of Energy grant No. DE-FG-0291-ER-40608; the work at the University of Maryland was supported by the US-ONR, ARDA, and DARPA; and the work at the University of Minnesota was supported by NSF Grants No. DMR 97-31756, DMR 02-37296, and EIA 02-10736. We thank S. Malhotra for helpful discussions.

## Appendix

Here we show that the linear conductance in Eq. (20) is independent of $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$, the fractions of the bias potential difference between the dot and the corresponding leads. Defining the new variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(N)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{(N)}\eta _\mathrm{l}`$, we can rewrite Eqs. (16) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f_{ij}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(N)})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]=0`$
$`\text{for all }i,`$ (62a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1f_{ij})[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(N)})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{r})]=0`$
$`\text{for all }j.`$ (62b)
The solution of Eqs. (62) is determined up to an additive constant. Since $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$ do not appear explicitly in Eqs. (62), we can choose a private solution $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^{(N)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{(N+1)}`$ that is independent of $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$. The general solution is then given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{(N)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^{(N)}+c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{(N+1)}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{(N+1)}+c`$, where $`c`$ is a constant. In particular, the normalization condition (17) can be satisfied by choosing

$$c=\left[\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^{(N)}+\eta _\mathrm{l})+\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_j^{(N+1)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{(N+1)}\right].$$
(63)
The constant $`c`$ depends on $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$, but disappears in the final expression for the conductance in Eq. (20),

$$G_{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}kT}\underset{ij}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_i^{(N)}f_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{(N+1)})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^\mathrm{l}.$$
(64)
Expression (64) for the conductance shows clearly its independence of $`\eta _\mathrm{l}`$ (and $`\eta _\mathrm{r}`$).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent cosmological observations show that the universe is in an accelerating epoch. These observations, together with CMB data, require a dark energy density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{de}0.7`$ and negative equation of state $`w_{de}=p_{de}/\rho _{de}<0`$ . The data suggest that $`w_{de}<2/3`$ and the best fit models have $`w_{de}`$ very close to minus one including the regions around $`w_{de}=1`$. Even more, the existing data do not ruled out a $`w_{de}<1`$ . Causality arguments seem to require $`w>1`$ but this is only the case for constant $`w`$ and in fact it is possible to have $`\left|w\right|>1`$ without violating causality . The possibility of having $`w<1`$ was raised by - where they studied a phantom energy density with $`\rho _{ph}>0`$ and $`w_{ph}<1`$. From a particle point of view it is unclear how such field can be obtained and it was suggested to have a scalar field with a negative kinetic energy , . In this work, we will concentrate on scalar fields with canonical kinetic terms ($`E_k0`$) that lead dynamically to regions with $`\left|w\right|>1`$.

The cosmology of negative potential has become increasingly interesting since many particle physics models and string theory predict anti-de-Sitter ”ADS” spaces. The cyclic universe  and the ekpyrotic  universe models use a negative potential and describe a universe that goes from a contracting phase (leading to a big crunch) to an accelerating universe. The main idea is to give an alternative theory to the big bang singularity. However, it is not yet clear the process of the transition between contracting and accelerating phases.

Scalar fields are widely obtained in particle physics, and they can be either fundamental fields or compose fields (fermion condensates) . They can be used to describe the cosmological constant as quintessence  and in all these models the scalar fields have a positive semi-definite potential $`V`$ . However, negative potential are widely predicted by string theory or by supergravity (sugra) models. The sugra potential is

$$V=e^K\left[F_i\left(K^1\right)_j^iF^j3\left|W\right|^2\right]$$
(1)
with $`K(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })`$ the Kahler potential, $`W\left(\varphi \right)`$ the superpotential and $`F_i=K_iW+W_i,W_idW/d\varphi _i`$. It is clear that the general vacua of sugra has a negative potential and a lot of model building (in many cases not quite self consistent) has to be done to get a potential $`V0`$.

Negative potentials were studied in  but in the absence of a background density and in a model dependent analysis. Here, we will study the cosmology of negative potentials in the presence of a background energy density, we do a model independent analysis of the evolution of the scalar field and we give some specific examples. We will show that these models lead to an equation of state with $`\left|w_\varphi \right|>1`$ in a natural dynamical way. The stage where $`w_\varphi <1`$ has a negative energy density $`\rho _\varphi <0`$ but a positive $`\rho _\varphi +p_\varphi =2E_k0`$. These models lead inevitable to a collapsing universe and to a would be ”big crunch” contrary to phantom fields. Indeed, phantom physics suggest that the final stage of the universe has a divergence of the scale factor at finite time ($`a\left(t\right)\mathrm{})`$  called a ”big smash” while a ”big crunch” ends in a singularity $`a\left(t\right)0`$, $`\rho \mathrm{}`$.

We do not worry about a big crunch as we do not worry about a big bang since we are working with an effective theory and we would expect that a fundamental theory like strings could have a graceful exit to the problem of singularities. The behavior of the universe approaching the big crunch singularity is just as bad as the big bang singularity since the universe has, in general, a time inversion symmetry $`t_0+tt_0t`$ around the point where the Hubble constant is zero $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$. So, whatever the solution to the big bang singularity will also solve the big crunch singularity. The evolution of the universe outside the possible singularities may well be described by the effective field theory and general relativity.

An accelerating universe requires a dominating energy density with $`w_i<1/3`$, (or more exact $`\mathrm{\Omega }_iw_i<1/3,\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\rho _i/\rho _{Tot}`$), and therefore we could naively think that a $`w_i<1`$ will increase the acceleration of the universe. However, a canonical normalized scalar field with $`w_\varphi <1`$ decelerates the universe because in this region the energy density is negative, as we will show later, and its contribution to the acceleration of the scale factor given by

$$\ddot{a}\left(\rho _\varphi +3p_\varphi \right)=\rho _\varphi \left(1+3w_\varphi \right)$$
(2)
is negative, thus decelerating the expansion of the universe.

In particle physics the prediction of many scalar fields is quite common. It is certainly more natural to assume the existence of more than one scalar field which will, in general, have different potentials and different cosmological evolutions. So, can quintessence be the sum of two or more different kinds of scalar fields? The answer is clearly yes. There is no theoretical or observational argument against it.

The interesting point is that negative potentials allow, al least in principle, to explain the cosmological scale in terms of a high energy scale (e.g. electroweak or susy breaking scale) since the contribution of a negative potential will cancel that of a positive potential rendering a finite small positive cosmological or quintessence energy . Of course, there is a fine tuning problem such that the difference of two quantities at the high energy scale gives something of the order of today’s energy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c10^{12}GeV`$ and that such a cancellation must take place during nucleosynthesis and today.

However, the evolution of the scalar field with negative potential will necessarily give a region with a small cosmological constant, since for $`\rho _\varphi `$ negative we have $`\left|\rho _\varphi \right|<\rho _b`$ regardless of the functional form of the potential $`V`$ and the fact that $`w_\varphi <1`$ which makes $`\left|\dot{\rho }_\varphi \right|`$ grow faster than $`\rho _b`$. The evolution is such that $`\rho _b+\rho _\varphi 0`$ for any potential $`V`$ or energy density $`\rho _b`$. So it is an attractor solution.

During all the time that $`\rho _\varphi <0`$ we have $`\left|\rho _\varphi \right|<\rho _b`$, i.e. it will get smaller than the sum of all other energy densities for a long period of time and regardless of the functional form of the potential $`V`$.

## 2 Energy Conditions

The weak energy condition ”WEC” states that the total energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ obey the inequalities

$`\rho +p=\rho \left(1+w\right)`$ $``$ $`0`$
$`\rho `$ $``$ $`0.`$ (3)
where we have used the equation of state $`p=w\rho `$. If WEC is supplemented with $`\rho \left|p\right|`$ then it is called the dominant energy condition ”DEC”. The argument for requiring $`\rho \left|p\right|`$ is because for a constant equation of state $`w=p/\rho `$, $`w`$ gives the speed of sound and it should not exceed the speed of light $`c=1`$, i.e. $`\left|w\right|1`$. However, if $`w`$ is not constant then we can have regions with $`\left|w\right|>1`$ and $`\left|dp/d\rho \right|>1`$ without violating causality. A full discussion on the sound speed, signal speed and causality for scalar fields is given in .

In a flat universe, the second equation in (2) can be understood also from the positivity of the Friedman equation $`3H^2=\rho `$ and the first equation is obeyed by matter ($`w=0`$), radiation ($`w=1/3`$), cosmological constant ($`w=1`$) and scalar fields ($`\rho +p=2E_k=\dot{\varphi }^2`$).

Here we will concentrate on the cosmology behavior of a canonically normalized scalar field $`\varphi `$, $`E_k=\dot{\varphi }^2/2`$, with a potential that has a negative minimum $`V\left(\varphi \right)|_{min}<0`$ in a flat universe. Having a scalar field with a negative potential will lead dynamically to a region with $`|w_\varphi p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi |>1`$.

In a flat universe we have

$$H^2=\frac{1}{3}\rho $$
(4)
with the reduced Planck mass $`m_p^2=1/8\pi G1`$ and with $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_A\rho _A`$, where $`A`$ stands for all kinds of energy densities, matter, radiation, cosmological constant or scalar fields. It is usually stated that a flat universe expands forever and it is infinite but this conclusion is not completely correct. It is based on the assumption that all energy densities are positive $`\rho _A>0`$ at finite time. However, if the contribution from some kind of energy has $`\rho _A<0`$, then it is possible to have $`3H^2=\rho =0`$ at finite time and the size of the universe will start to decrease afterwards. The behavior is very similar as for a closed universe with positive curvature since it will reach a maximum size and then will start contracting ending in a big crunch.

To see this, let us study the cosmological evolution of $`\varphi `$ with an arbitrary potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$. It can be determined from a system of differential equations describing a spatially flat Friedmann–Robertson–Walker universe,

$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\rho +p\right),`$ (5)
$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`3H\left(\rho +p\right)`$
where $`H\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter and dot refers to derivative w.r.t. time.

The weak energy condition together with eqs.(5) imply that $`H`$ is an non increasing quantity, $`\dot{H}0`$. Since the scale factor is always non-negative, $`a0`$, the maximum size of the universe will be given at $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$ with $`a\left(t\right)a\left(t_0\right)`$ and afterwards the scale factor will start to shrink until it arrives at a big crunch with $`a0`$. For this kind of behavior, it is required that the total energy density vanishes at a finite time. For $`H>0`$ the energy density $`\rho `$ decreases with time and it reaches $`\rho \left(t_0\right)=0`$ at $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$. If this happens at a finite time $`t_0`$ then the evolution in eq.(5) leads to a negative $`H`$ and a increasing $`\rho `$ for $`t>t_0`$.

A third possibility is that of a phantom energy. The phantom energy does not comply with the WEC since it has $`\rho _{ph}>0`$ but $`\rho _{ph}+p_{ph}=\rho _{ph}\left(1+w_{ph}\right)=2E_k<0`$, i.e. the scalar field has non-canonical (negative) kinetic term. From eqs.(5) we can see that if the phantom field dominates then $`\dot{H}`$ is positive giving an increasing $`H`$ and $`\rho _{ph}`$. The fact that phantom physics gives a big smash can be understand from the solution of the scale factor valid for $`w_{ph}`$ constant and when the phantom field starts to dominate and after a period of matter domination. The solution is $`a\left(t\right)=a\left(t_m\right)\left[w_{ph}+\left(1+w_{ph}\right)\left(t/t_m\right)\right]^{2/3\left(1+w_{ph}\right)}`$ . It is clear that $`a\mathrm{}`$ at the finite time $`t=t_mw_{ph}/\left(1+w_{ph}\right)`$ since the exponent of $`a\left(t\right)`$ is negative ($`1+w_{ph}<0`$) and the term in brackets vanishes. As mentioned above, here we will not work with this kind of energy density since we are only considering standard canonically normalized scalar fields.

It is clear, from the Friedman and WEC equations, that the total energy density must be positive semi-definite but we can have a sector with negative energy densities, say $`\rho _i`$, without contradicting the WEC (eq.(2)) as long as the total energy $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_A\rho _A0`$. However, even for this type of energy density, which we assume comes from a canonical normalized scalar field we have

$$\rho _\varphi +p_\varphi =\rho _\varphi \left(1+w_\varphi \right)=2E_k0$$
(6)
with $`\rho _\varphi =E_k+V,p_\varphi =E_kV`$. This inequality is clearly also satisfied for matter, radiation or cosmological constant. Therefore, $`\rho _i+p_i0`$ holds for all classes of fluids we are here considering. However, eqs.(6) allows for a negative energy density as along as $`w_\varphi <1`$, i.e. we can have

$$\rho _\varphi <0w_\varphi <1$$
(7)
as long as the total $`\rho 0`$ with the total $`w=p/\rho >1`$. We will also have for $`\rho _\varphi >0`$

$$E_k>V>0w_\varphi >1.$$
(8)
The fact that we have $`w_\varphi <1`$ is not a problem with causality because it is only in the case of $`w_\varphi `$ constant that $`w_\varphi `$ can be interpreted as the sound speed of the fluid in which case it must be smaller than the speed of light.

## 3 Time Inversion Symmetry and Dynamics

Let us now study under which conditions do we have a time inversion symmetry around the point $`t_0`$, where $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$. The dynamical equations are

$`H^2\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\rho _A\left(t\right)`$ (9)
$`\dot{H}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\left(\rho _A\left(t\right)+p_A\left(t\right)\right),`$ (10)
$`\dot{\rho }_A\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`3H\left(t\right)\left(\rho _A\left(t\right)+p_A\left(t\right)\right)`$ (11)
where $`A`$ stands for all kind of fluids, matter, radiation, cosmological constant or scalar fields.

To have an inversion symmetry it is sufficient to have $`\rho _A\left(t\right)=\rho _A\left(t^{}\right)`$ and $`p_A\left(t\right)=p_A\left(t^{}\right)`$ (or equivalently $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _A\left(1+w_A\left(t\right)\right)=\rho _A\left(t\right)+p_A\left(t\right)`$ symmetric) for all fluids for $`t=t_0\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`t^{}=t_0+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (for $`t_0=0`$ we would have a transformation $`tt^{}=t`$). For fluids with constant $`1w_A1`$, as matter, radiation or cosmological constant, the time symmetry is always satisfied. Therefore, the big crunch is just as problematic as the big bang and the solution could be expected to be the same for both singularities.

If we have scalar fields, then a time inversion symmetry is only possible if $`\dot{\varphi }^2\left(t\right)=\dot{\varphi }^2\left(t^{}\right)`$ for all $`t`$, since $`\rho _\varphi +p_\varphi =\rho _\varphi \left(1+w_\varphi \right)=\dot{\varphi }^2`$. This will be satisfied for $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t\right)=\pm \dot{\varphi }\left(t^{}\right)`$. If

$$\dot{\varphi }\left(t\right)=\dot{\varphi }\left(t^{}\right)\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)=0\varphi \left(t\right)=\varphi \left(t^{}\right)$$
(12)
Clearly the time inversion symmetry would be, in this case, valid for all kinds of potentials $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$. If $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t\right)=\pm \dot{\varphi }\left(t^{}\right)`$ is satisfied locally around $`t_0`$ the dynamics ensures that it is valid for all $`t`$. However, if $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)0`$, then a symmetric solution is only possible if the potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$ is symmetric around $`\varphi \left(t_0\right)`$. This can be seen from the equation of motion of $`\varphi `$

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}=0$$
(13)
with $`V^{}=dV/d\varphi `$ and at $`t_0`$ one has $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$ and for $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)0`$ a symmetric solution requires

$$\dot{\varphi }\left(t\right)=\dot{\varphi }\left(t^{}\right)\ddot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)=0V^{}\left(t_0\right)=0.$$
(14)
We conclude that arbitrary initial conditions at $`t_0`$ for a scalar field will, in general, break the time inversion symmetry. Only a symmetric initial condition given at $`t_0`$ with $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)=0`$ will respect the time symmetry independently of the potential $`V`$, or for a symmetric potential around $`\varphi \left(t_0\right)`$ and arbitrary initial condition for $`\dot{\varphi }`$.

As a consequence of the time inversion symmetry the final time is $`t_f2t_0t_i`$, with $`t_i`$ the initial time which could be set to zero, and it does not make sense to take $`t_f\mathrm{}`$. There will be a big crunch only if there was a big bang singularity. The minimum size of the scale factor is then at $`a\left(t_f\right)=a\left(t_i\right)`$, and the energy densities and Hubble parameter will end up at the same value as they started $`\rho _A\left(t_i\right)=\rho _A\left(t_f\right),H\left(t_i\right)=H\left(t_f\right)`$. So the dynamics for $`t>t_0`$ is just the same as the dynamics for $`t<t_0`$. In  it was argued that negative potential are as dangerous as unbounded potentials and that the kinetic terms dominates at large times. This is true but the ”reasonable” position is to cut off the time at $`t_f=2t_0t_i`$.

### 3.1 Solution with constant $`w`$

It is useful to study first the evolution of fluids with constant $`w`$ and later introduce a scalar field with arbitrary potential varying $`w`$.

The main features can be obtained from the $`w_b`$ constant example. From eq.(11) an arbitrary energy density evolves as

$$\rho _b\left(t\right)=\rho _{bi}\left(\frac{a\left(t\right)}{a_i}\right)^{3\left(1+w_b\right)}$$
(15)
with a constant equation of state parameter $`1w_b1`$ and initial energy density $`\rho _{bi}>0`$.

As long as we have an expanding universe $`H>0`$, i.e. $`a\left(t\right)>a_i\left(t_i\right)`$ for $`t>t_i`$, and with $`1+w_b>0`$ we have a decreasing amplitude in time of $`\rho _b`$ with $`\rho _b0`$ at late times. This kind of behavior is the usual one for radiation or matter, with $`w_b=1/3,0`$ respectively.

However, as discussed above, we can have $`H<0`$. In this case we have a decreasing scale factor $`a\left(t\right)<a_i\left(t_i\right)\left(t>t_i\right)`$ and $`\rho _b`$ increases with time (decreasing $`a\left(t\right)`$). It is easy to see that we have a symmetric $`\rho _b`$ under the transformation $`t=t_0\mathrm{\Delta }tt^{}=t_0+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ with $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$ if $`a\left(t\right)=a\left(t^{}\right)`$. Eq.(15) can be rewritten as

$$\rho _b\left(t\right)=\rho _{b0}\left(\frac{a\left(t\right)}{a\left(t_0\right)}\right)^{3\left(1+w_b\right)}$$
(16)
with $`a\left(t\right)<a_0\left(t_0\right)`$ and valid for all $`t`$. The energy density $`\rho _{b0}`$ gives the minimum value of $`\rho _b`$.

Let us now include a cosmological constant with negative energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ and a fluid with constant $`|w_b=p_b/\rho _b|<1`$.

In this case we will have a symmetric solution around $`t_0`$.

The equations to be solve are $`\dot{\rho }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\rho _b=3H\rho _b\gamma _b`$, with $`\gamma _b1+w_b=cte`$. Using $`H=\pm \sqrt{\left(\rho _b\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)/3}`$, with the plus sign for $`t<t_0`$ and the minus sign for $`t>t_0`$, we can integrate eq.(11) from $`t`$ to $`t_0`$ giving

$$\frac{d\rho _b}{\rho _b\sqrt{\rho _b\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=3\gamma _bt_0t$$
(17)
and

$$\rho _b\left(t\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }Tan\left[\frac{\gamma _b\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2}\left(t_0t\right)\right]^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(18)
with

$$H\left(t\right)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}Tan\left[\frac{\gamma _b\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2}\left(t_0t\right)\right]$$
(19)
were we have taken $`\rho _b\left(t_0\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (i.e. $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$). The Hubble parameter $`H\left(t\right)`$ in eq.(19) is positive for $`t<t_0`$ and it is negative for $`t>t_0`$. It is easy to see that the solution (18) and (19) are symmetric under time inversion $`t_0tt_0+t`$ and $`\rho _b,H`$ blow up at $`\frac{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}\gamma _b}{2}\left(t_0t\right)=\pi /2`$ since $`Tan\left[\pi /2\right]=\mathrm{}`$. The quantities $`\rho _b,H^2`$ start at a given initial value and they decrease as long as $`t<t_0`$ reaching its minimum value at $`t_0`$ with $`\rho _b\left(t_0\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$. For $`t>t_0`$ we have a negative $`H`$ and $`\rho _b`$ starts to increase. We would take the final value of $`t`$ as $`t_ft_0=t_0t_i`$ and $`\rho _b\left(t_f\right)=\rho _b\left(t_i\right)`$. We can also see that $`\rho `$ never becomes negative nor $`\rho _b`$ smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

### 3.2 Scalar field Dynamics

We will now study the evolution of scalar field with a negative minimum $`V|_{min}<0`$ potential with energy density $`\rho _\varphi =E_k+V`$ and pressure $`p_\varphi =E_kV`$. This situation is completely equivalent as to having a semi-positive definite potential in the presence of a negative energy density.

Considering a scalar field with negative potential but with no other type of energy densities, then WEC requires $`E_k+V0`$ and therefore $`w_\varphi `$ is bounded from below $`w_\varphi 1`$ at all times. In this case we cannot arrive at the situation where we have $`w_\varphi <1`$ and $`\rho _\varphi <0`$, even though we have a negative $`V`$ but there will be regions with $`w_\varphi >1`$.

For two (or more) sectors which are only connected via gravity so that $`\rho =\rho _b+\rho _\varphi ,p=p_b+p_\varphi `$ with $`\dot{\rho }_A=3H\left(\rho _A+p_A\right)`$ and equation of state $`p_A=w_A\rho _A`$ for $`A=b,\varphi `$. In this case the weak energy principle is $`\rho =\rho _b+\rho _\varphi 0`$ and $`\rho _A+p_A=\rho _A\left(1+w_A\right)0`$ for each component separately $`A=b,\varphi `$.

To have an idea on how the evolution of the different energy densities behave in the presence of a scalar field with negative potential we solve eq.(11) for $`\rho _\varphi `$ with constant $`w_\varphi `$ and consider the different regions. Of course, $`w_\varphi `$ is far from being a constant but the generic features are well described by taking $`w_\varphi `$ constant with different values. We will later allow for a dynamical non constant $`w_\varphi `$.

An arbitrary energy density evolves as in eq.(15).

$$\rho _\varphi \left(t\right)=\rho _{\varphi i}\left(\frac{a\left(t\right)}{a_i}\right)^{3\left(1+w_\varphi \right)}.$$
(20)
where $`\rho _{\varphi i},w_\varphi `$ take different values depending in which region they are taken. As long as we have an expanding universe $`H>0`$, i.e. $`a\left(t\right)>a_i`$, and we can distinguish two different cases $`\rho _{\varphi i}`$ positive or negative. For $`\rho _{\varphi i}>0`$ we have $`1+w_\varphi >0`$ and a decreasing amplitude of $`\rho _\varphi `$. However, as discussed above, we can have $`\rho _\varphi 0`$ with total $`\rho 0`$. In this case, from eq.(7) we necessarily have $`w_\varphi <1`$. Still in the region with $`H>0`$ we have a decreasing $`\rho _\varphi `$ but since it is negative $`\left|\rho _\varphi \right|`$ grows in time, i.e. it becomes more and more negative. In the mean time the energy density of all other sectors (with $`\rho _b>0`$) are also decreasing (in absolute terms), so we will necessarily reach a point when the total energy density vanishes $`\rho =\rho _b+\rho _\varphi =0,H=0`$.

During all the time that $`\rho _\varphi <0`$ we have $`\left|\rho _\varphi \right|<\rho _b`$, i.e. it is smaller than the sum of all other energy densities for a long period of time and regardless of the functional form of the potential $`V`$ and the fact that $`w_\varphi <1`$.

Since $`H`$ is always decreasing, after $`H\left(t_0\right)=0`$ we will have a contracting universe with $`H<0`$, i.e. $`a\left(t\right)<a\left(t_0\right)`$. At this time $`\rho _\varphi `$, which is still negative, will start growing with a $`w_\varphi <1`$ and become less negative. Eventually, $`\rho _\varphi `$ will become positive and $`w_\varphi >1`$. The energy density will continue to grow with decreasing scale factor $`a\left(t\right)`$. If we have a symmetric solution for the scalar fields (see eqs.(12) and (14)) than $`a\left(t_f\right)a_i\left(t_i\right)`$ and $`\rho _\varphi \rho _{\varphi i}`$ where $`a_i,\rho _{\varphi i}`$ are the initial values.

Until now, we have shown the generic evolution of $`\rho _\varphi `$ considering $`w_\varphi `$ constant and taking different values depending on the region.

In  it was shown that a scalar field with negative potential its kinetic energy will dominate over the scalar potential $`V`$ but this result depends on the potential. Let us now see under which conditions will the kinetic term dominate the potential. In this approximation we can take in eq.(13) $`V^{}3H\dot{\varphi }`$, i.e.

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=0.$$
(21)
In order to analytically solve eq.(21) we can take, without loss of generality, the scalar potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)=V_1\left(\varphi \right)+V_{min}`$, with $`V_{min}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the (constant) value of $`V`$ at the minimum and $`V_10`$. In the case that $`\rho _b+V_{min}=\rho _b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominates over $`V_1`$ we can use in eq.(21) $`H`$ given by eq.(19). Doing so, we have $`d\phi /\phi =3Hdt`$ with $`\phi \dot{\varphi }`$ and integrating the r.h.s. we find

$`{\displaystyle _t^{t_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{\phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t^{t_0}}3H𝑑t`$
$`Log\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\phi \left(t_0\right)}{\phi \left(t\right)}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma _b}}Cos\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}\gamma _b}{2}}\left(t_0t\right)\right)`$ (22)
giving

$$\dot{\varphi }\left(t\right)=\dot{\varphi }_0\left[Cos\left(\frac{\gamma _b\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2}\left(t_0t\right)\right)\right]^{\frac{2}{\gamma _b}}.$$
(23)
For a matter background $`\gamma _b=1+w_b=1`$ the exponent in eq.(23) is 2 and we can solve it for $`\varphi =\dot{\varphi }𝑑t`$ giving

$$\varphi \left(t\right)=\varphi _0+\frac{tt_0}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}}Sin\left(\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(t_0t\right)\right).$$
(24)
We see from eqs.(23) and (24) that the kinetic term and the scalar field (or potential $`V=c\varphi ^n`$) have an oscillating behavior and neither of them diverges large at large $`t`$. Of course, this result is only approximated since it has been obtained under the hypothesis that the barotropic fluid dominates so that we can use $`H`$ of eq.(19).

In the other limiting case where $`\ddot{\varphi }3H\dot{\varphi }=V^{}`$ with a potential $`V=c\varphi ^n`$, we have $`d\varphi /V^{}=d\varphi /cn\varphi ^{n1}=dt/3H`$ and

$$\varphi \left(t_f\right)^{2n}\varphi \left(t_i\right)^{2n}=\frac{2n\left(n2\right)c}{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}Log\left[\frac{Sin\left(\frac{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2}\left(t_0t_f\right)\right)}{Sin\left(\frac{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2}\left(t_0t_i\right)\right)}\right]$$
(25)
for all $`t`$ (larger or smaller than $`t_0`$). In this case there is a divergent behavior at $`tt_0`$ where $`Log\left(Sin\left[tt_0\right]\right)\mathrm{}`$ and $`\left|\varphi \left(t\right)^{2n}\right|\mathrm{}`$. For $`n>2`$ one has $`\varphi \left(t\right)0`$ while for $`n<2`$ the value is $`\varphi \left(t\right)\mathrm{}`$.

## 4 Effective w

For an arbitrary potential $`V`$, the quantity $`|w_\varphi =(E_kV)/(E_k+V)|<1`$ at all times if $`V`$ is a non-negative potential since $`E_k+V>E_kV`$. However for negative potentials we have regions with $`\left|w_\varphi \right|>1`$, since in this case the terms in the numerator have the same sign, when $`V`$ is negative, while in the denominator they have opposite sign. The parameter $`w_\varphi `$ will then be greater than one for $`\rho _\varphi =E_k+V>0`$ and smaller than -1 for $`\rho _\varphi <0`$ as given by eqs.(7) and (8).

As stated in the introduction, the SN1a and CMB data do not ruled out an energy density with $`w<1`$. We have seen so far that in order to have $`w_\varphi <1`$, for a canonical scalar field, we also need to have $`\rho _\varphi <0`$. So, what is the effect of having a negative energy density with $`w_\varphi <1`$ in the total equation of state $`w=p/\rho `$?

Let as consider an energy density given by $`\rho =\rho _1+\rho _2`$ with the conditions $`\rho >0,\rho _1>0,\rho _2<0`$ and equations of state $`p=w\rho ,p=p_1+p_2`$ and $`p_i=w_i\rho _i,i=1,2`$. As we have seen previously, $`w_2`$ must necessarily be smaller than -1 and we take $`1<w_1<1`$. The energy density $`\rho _1`$ can be either matter, radiation, cosmological constant or a scalar field with non negative potential (e.g. quintessence $`1w_11`$). The equation of state parameter for the total $`\rho `$ is

$$w=\frac{p}{\rho }=\frac{w_1\rho _1+w_2\rho _2}{\rho }$$
(26)
Since $`\rho _1>\rho =\rho _1+\rho _2>0`$ and $`w_2\rho _2>0`$ (both are negative) we have

$$w>w_1\rho _1/\rho >w_1$$
(27)
regardless of the values of $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$. Notice that the value of $`w_2`$ is smaller than -1 but the final $`w`$ is not only greater than -1 but it is greater than $`w_1`$. This means that a negative potential will increase the value $`w_1`$ of any energy density component including that of a scalar field with positive energy density or that of a cosmological constant with $`\rho _1=cte`$ and $`w_1=1`$.

A scalar field with a negative minimum potential can always be written as $`V=V_1+V_{min}`$ with $`V_10`$ and $`V_{min}<0`$ constant. The minimum of the potential is at $`V_1=0`$ and $`V=V_{min}<0`$. This separation of the potential for a scalar field is entirely equivalent as to having a scalar field with non negative potential $`V_1`$ and kinetic energy $`E_k=\dot{\varphi }^2/2`$ in the presence of a negative cosmological constant given by $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=V_{min}=p_\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. The equation of state would be

$$\left|w_1\right|=\left|\frac{p_1}{\rho _1}\right|=\left|\frac{E_kV_1}{E_k+V_1}\right|<1w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{p_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}=1.$$
(28)
The original equation of state $`w_\varphi =\left(E_kV\right)/\left(E_k+V\right)=\left(E_k\left(V_1+V_{min}\right)\right)/\left(E_k+V_1+V_{min}\right)`$ can be expressed in terms of $`w_1`$ and $`w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ as

$$w_\varphi =w_1\left(1+w_1\right)\frac{\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho _1+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(29)
and if $`\rho _1+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ we have $`w_\varphi <1`$ since $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }/\left(\rho _1+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)<1`$ (the terms in the denominator have opposite signs) while for $`\rho _1+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ we get $`w_\varphi >1`$ since $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }/\left(\rho _1+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)>1`$ and we recover eqs.(7) and (8).

We conclude that a scalar field with negative potential is equivalent to a positive semi-definite potential in the presence of a negative energy density cosmological constant.

## 5 Models with Negative Potentials

Let us now analyze the cosmological evolution of scalar fields for different negative potentials.

In the first case, we consider a potential with a simple mass term $`V=m^2\varphi ^2+V_2`$ with $`V_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ in the presence of matter. The evolution is shown in fig.1.

As given by solving eqs.(9) the field rolls down the potential and oscillates around it. For $`t<t_0`$ we have an expanding universe with $`H>0`$ while for $`t>t_0`$ we have a contracting universe with $`H<0`$. While $`\rho _\varphi 0`$ and $`V0`$ we have $`1w_\varphi 1`$ and as soon as $`V<0`$ we have $`w_\varphi >1`$. At $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ we have $`\rho _\varphi \left(t_1\right)=\rho _\varphi \left(t_2\right)=0`$ and we see that for $`t_1<t<t_2`$ the equation of state parameter oscillates with amplitude $`w_\varphi <1`$ and the energy density is $`\rho _\varphi \left(t\right)<0`$. For $`t<t_0`$ the energy density $`\rho _\varphi `$ decreases but it increases in magnitude for $`t_1<t<t_0`$. We have an almost symmetric phase around $`t_0`$ even though $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)0`$ this is because the field is oscillating around the minimum with decreasing amplitude for $`tt_0`$ and the potential itself is symmetric around the $`\varphi =0`$.

For $`V>0`$ we can have an accelerating period if $`\varphi `$ is large enough to satisfy the slow roll conditions. At the end of the slow roll the field will oscillate around the (negative) minimum where $`w_\varphi <0`$. The universe will recollapse when $`\rho _\varphi `$ equals the background energy density and $`H=0`$. This could well happen in the future. However, in order to have $`\varphi `$ as the quintessence field its appearance would have to be fine tuned to give $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi 0.7`$ at present time and not to accelerate the universe at times earlier than $`Log\left[a_o/a\right]>1`$.

As a second example we consider an inverse power potential with $`V=m\varphi ^1+V_2`$, with $`V_2<0`$ constant in the presence of matter with $`w=1`$. In this case the potential is clearly not symmetric for any value of $`\varphi `$. So, we would expect a symmetric solution only if $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)=0`$. In fig.2 and fig.3 we see the evolution of the scale factor $`a`$, the Hubble parameter $`H`$ and the equation of state $`w_\varphi `$ for different initial conditions. In fig.2 we have $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)0`$ and we can see that there is no symmetry for $`t<t_0`$ and $`t>t_0`$. However, the generic behavior of the energy densities $`\rho _m,\rho _\varphi `$ is still valid, i.e. they decrease for $`t<t_0`$ and they increase for $`t>t_0`$. The equation of state parameter $`w_\varphi <1`$ for $`t_1<t<t_2`$.

Notice that for $`t<t_1`$ the value of $`w_\varphi `$ is negative, i.e. $`1<w_\varphi <0`$. In the absence of the negative term, we know that inverse power potentials (as $`V=m/\varphi `$) lead to an accelerating epoch and to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi 1`$, dominating the universe at late times and the acceleration of the scale factor does not stop. These kind of potentials are used as quintessence. Here, with the inclusion of a negative term we could have an accelerating scale factor but the period of positive acceleration will necessarily stop.

In fig.3 we show the evolution for the same potential but with $`\dot{\varphi }\left(t_0\right)=0`$. We see that in this case even though the potential is not symmetric around $`\varphi \left(t_0\right)`$ we have a symmetric solution since $`\varphi \left(t_0t\right)=\varphi \left(t_0+t\right)`$.

## 6  Conclusions

We have seen that a canonically normalized scalar field can lead dynamically to a region with an oscillating equation of state parameter with $`w_\varphi <1`$. For this to happen a negative potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$ is needed and the region where $`w_\varphi <1\rho _\varphi <0`$ and the WEC is not violated.

During all the time that $`\rho _\varphi <0`$ we have $`\left|\rho _\varphi \right|`$, smaller than the sum of all other energy densities for a long period of time and regardless of the functional form of the potential $`V`$. This opens the possibility of having a small cosmological constant today as the result of cancellation of higher energy scales, as EW or susy breaking scales.

The total equation of state parameter $`w`$ increases its value with the contribution of the scalar with $`w_\varphi <1`$ and $`\rho _\varphi <0`$ since it gives a negative contribution to $`\ddot{a}\rho _\varphi \left(1+3w_\varphi \right)`$.

This work was supported in part by CONACYT project 32415-E and DGAPA, UNAM project IN-110200.