text:
# 1 Introduction and Summary

## 1 Introduction and Summary

The classic study of the rate of creation of electron-positron pairs in a uniform, constant electric field was done more than 50 years ago in the seminal paper by Schwinger . The concepts and methodology introduced in this work have had a lasting impact on the formal development of quantum field theory, and by now several alternative derivations of the effect have been invented (see e.g. ).

Schwinger’s predicted rate per unit time and volume is given by

$$𝒲(E)=qE\frac{d^2k_i}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi n(m_e^2+k_i^2)}{|qE|}\right)$$
(1.1)
for a spin 1/2 particle in $`4`$ flat space-time dimensions, with $`m_e`$ and $`q`$ the electron mass and charge, $`k_i`$ the transverse momenta, and $`E`$ the electric field.111The rate (1.1) is still very small for experimentally accessible electric fields. For the rate to be appreciable, the field must be very large, around $`E_{crit}=10^{16}eV/cm`$. A static field of this magnitude is difficult to obtain in laboratories, largely because it is several orders of magnitude above the electric field that can be sustained by an atom, namely $`10^8eV/cm`$. See  for a recent experiment that has obtained pair creation from oscillating electric fields, which were studied theoretically in , and see  for an upcoming experiment studying pair production from the low-frequency, Schwinger limit of such fields.

In an earlier set of equally classic papers , Kaluza and Klein introduced their unified description of general relativity and electromagnetism, in which charged particles appear as quanta with non-zero quantized momentum around a compact extra dimension. It has of course always been clear that the charged Kaluza-Klein particles do not have the correct properties to represent electrons; most notably, the mass of the fundamental KK particles is equal to (or bounded below by) their charge, while for the electron the ratio $`m_e/q`$ is about $`10^{21}`$ ! So in comparison with electrons, KK particles are either very heavy or have (in a large extra dimension scenario) an exceedingly small KK electric charge. Nonetheless, or rather, because of this fact, it is an interesting theoretical question whether it is at all possible, via an idealized Gedanken experiment, to pair produce KK particles by means of the Schwinger mechanism. As far as we know, this question has not been addressed so far in the literature, and probably for a good reason: it turns out to be a subtle problem! We will show that unlike the standard Schwinger pair creation effect, pair production of KK particles cannot be given the simple and rather intuitive interpretation of a tunneling mechanism.

Imagine setting up our Gedanken experiment as in fig 1, with two charged plates with a non-zero KK electric field in between. As seen from eqn (1.1), to turn on the effect by any appreciable amount will require an enormous KK electric field, and since Kaluza-Klein theory automatically includes gravity, the backreaction of the E-field on space-time will need to be taken into account. The best analog of a constant electric field in this setting is the electric version of the Kaluza-Klein Melvin background; the magnetic version was studied recently in 222In , pair production of Kaluza-Klein monopoles from the magnetic Kaluza-Klein Melvin solution was studied. See also  for a study of other aspects of the magnetic solutions., and in  the electric version also appeared. We will study some of the features of the electric KKM background in section 2. For our problem, the relevant properties of this background are that

(i) the background geometry depends on a longitudinal coordinate, which we will call $`\rho `$;

(ii) a gravitational acceleration $`a(\rho )`$, directed along the E-field, is included;

(iii) the total gravitational and electrostatic potential energy remains positive everywhere.

The first two properties are expected backreaction effects. The last property, however, implies that the negative electrostatic potential can never be made large enough to compensate for the positive contribution coming from the rest mass of the particles. The physical reason for this obstruction is that before one reaches the critical electro-static potential, backreaction effects will cause space-time itself to break down: if one would formally continue the solution beyond this point, the space-time develops closed time-like curves, which are known to be unphysical. In this way, gravity puts an upper limit on the potential difference one can achieve between the two plates in fig 1.

This result may look like an insurmountable obstacle for pair creation, which is usually  thought of as a tunneling effect by which particle pairs can materialize by using their electro-static energy to overcome their rest mass. The modern instanton method  of computing the pair creation rate, for example, crucially depends on this intuition. However, as mentioned in point (ii) above, it turns out that the backreaction necessarily implies that the vacuum state of the KK particles needs to be defined in the presence of a non-zero gravitational acceleration. As we will explain in Appendix A, the necessary presence of this acceleration can be thought of as due to the non-zero mass of the parallel plates that produce the KK electric field. Consequently, the Schwinger effect needs to be studied in conjunction with its direct gravitational analog, the equally famous Hawking-Unruh effect .

It has been recognized for some time that the Hawking-Unruh effect and Schwinger pair creation are rather closely related (see, for example, ); both can be understood via a distortion of the vacuum, which may be parametrized by means of some appropriate Bogolyubov transformation that relates the standard energy eigenmodes to the new energy eigenmodes in the non-trivial background field. Also, like the Schwinger effect, the Hawking–Unruh effect has been thought of as a tunnelling mechanism and was derived as such recently ; see also  for a related study of de Sitter radiation.

By combining both the Schwinger and the Unruh effects we will obtain the following result for the pair creation rate of the Kaluza-Klein particles (which we will assume to be scalar particles) as a function of the electric field $`E`$ and gravitational acceleration $`a`$

$$𝒲(E,a)=\frac{a^{3/2}}{2\pi ^2}\frac{\stackrel{_{^{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\underset{q}{}\left(q^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }k_i^2\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi \omega (a,q,k_i)\right]$$
(1.2)
where

$`\omega (a,q,k_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2+k_i^2}{|\frac{1}{2}qE+a\sqrt{q^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }k_i^2}|}},\mathrm{\Lambda }=1{\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{4a^2}},`$ (1.3)
Here the summation is over the full KK tower of all possible charges $`q=n/R`$ with $`n`$ integer and $`R`$ the radius of the extra dimension, and $`a`$ is the ‘bare’ acceleration, that the particles would experience with the $`E`$-field turned off. While $`E`$ in this formula is a constant, $`a`$ in fact depends on the longitudinal coordinate via $`1/a=\rho +`$ const. The potential energy in (1.3) is the manifestly positive quantity we referred to in property (iii) above. A more detailed explanation of the result (1.2) will be given in Section 5.

Since in our case mass equals charge the result (1.2) looks like a reasonable generalization of the classic result (1.1) of Schwinger and of Unruh . In particular, if we turn off the E-field, our expression (1.2) reduces to the Boltzmann factor with Hawking-Unruh temperature $`\beta =2\pi /a`$. Moreover, if we would allow ourselves to drop all terms containing the acceleration $`a`$, the result is indeed very similar to the dominant $`n=1`$ term in Schwinger’s formula (1.1). However, it turns out that in our case, the gravitational backreaction dictates that the acceleration $`a`$ can not be turned off; rather, it is bounded from below by the electric field via

$$a>|E/2|.$$
(1.4)
Our formula (1.2) indeed breaks down when $`a`$ gets below this value. So in particular, there is no continuous weak field limit in which our result reduces to Schwinger’s answer. We will further discuss the physical interpretation of our result in the concluding section, where we will make a more complete comparison with the known rate  for Schwinger production in an accelerating frame.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we describe some properties of the electric Kaluza-Klein Melvin space-time. In sections 3 and 4 we study classical particle mechanics and wave mechanics in this background. Finally in section 5, we set out to calculate the pair creation rate, using (and comparing) several methods of computation. Section 6 contains some concluding remarks. We discuss our experimental set-up in Appendix A, and in Appendix B we summarize the known result for Schwinger pair production in an accelerating frame.

## 2 The Electric Kaluza-Klein-Melvin Space-Time

We start with describing the classical background of d+1-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, representing a maximally uniform KK electric field.

### 2.1 Definition of the Electric KKM Space-time

Consider a flat $`d+1`$ dimensional flat Minkowski space-time, with the metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+dx^2+dy_idy^i+dx_{d+1}^2,$$
(2.1)
with $`i=2,\mathrm{},d1`$. From this we obtain the electric Kaluza-Klein-Melvin space-time by making the identification

$$(\begin{array}{c}t\\ x\\ y_i\\ x_{d+1}\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}t^{}\\ x^{}\\ y_i^{}\\ x_{d+1}^{}\end{array})=(\begin{array}{c}\gamma (t\beta x)\\ \gamma (x\beta t)\\ y_i\\ x_{d+1}+2\pi R\end{array}),$$
(2.2)
with $`\gamma ^2(1\beta ^2)=1`$. This geometry can be viewed as a non-trivial Kaluza-Klein background in $`d`$ dimensions, in which the standard periodic identification $`x_{d+1}x_{d+1}+2\pi R`$ of the extra dimension is accompanied by a Lorentz boost in the $`x`$-direction. Since the $`d+1`$ dimensional space-time is flat everywhere, and the identification map (2.2) is an isometry, it is evident that the electric Melvin background solves the equation of motion of the Kaluza-Klein theory. As we will describe momentarily, from the $`d`$-dimensional point of view, it looks like a non-trivial background with a constant non-zero electric field $`E`$ and with, as a result of its non-zero stress-energy, a curved space-time geometry. Here the electric field $`E`$ is related to the boost parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ by

$$\beta =\mathrm{tanh}(\pi RE),\gamma =\mathrm{cosh}(\pi RE).$$
(2.3)
The map (2.2) represents a proper space-like identification, for which

$$(t^{}t)^2+(x^{}x)^2+(x_{d+1}^{}x_{d+1})^2=(2\pi R)^2(2\gamma 2)(x^2t^2)>0$$
(2.4)
provided we restrict to the region

$$\rho <\frac{\pi R}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi ER}{2}},\rho ^2x^2t^2.$$
(2.5)
where we used (2.3). Outside of this regime, the electric Melvin space-time contains closed time-like curves. We will exclude this pathological region from our actual physical set-up. 333 There is also a different notion of the electric version of the KK Melvin space-time, which is obtained by applying an electro-magnetic duality transformation $`Fe^{2\sqrt{3}\varphi }F`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$ to the magnetic KK Melvin space-time . This background looks like an electric flux-tube in a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory with an electric coupling constant $`e`$ that diverges at large transverse distance from the flux-tube (due to the fact that the size of the extra dimension shrinks at large distance). Putting a reasonable physical upper bound on the size of $`e`$ restricts the maximal allowed length of the flux tube, suggesting that the obstruction against creating an arbitrarily large electro-static potential may be more general than only for the type of backgrounds studied in this paper.

### 2.2 Classical Trajectories

As a first motivation for the identification of $`E`$ with the KK electric field, it is instructive to consider classical trajectories in this space-time. This is particularly easy, since in flat $`d+1`$ Minkowski space, freely moving particles move in straight lines:

$$x=x_0+p_1s,x^{}=t_0+p_0s,y_i=k_is,x_{d+1}=qs.$$
(2.6)
Assuming the particle is massless in $`d+1`$-dimensions, we have

$$p_0=\sqrt{p_1^2+k_i^2+q^2}$$
(2.7)
which is the mass-shell relation of a $`d`$-dimensional particle with mass equal to $`q`$. Let’s introduce coordinates $`\rho `$ and $`\tau `$ via

$$x=\rho \mathrm{cosh}(\tau \frac{1}{2}Ex_{d+1}),t=\rho \mathrm{sinh}(\tau \frac{1}{2}Ex_{d+1}).$$
(2.8)
and coordinates $`X`$ and $`T`$ by

$$X=\rho \mathrm{cosh}\tau T=\rho \mathrm{sinh}\tau .$$
(2.9)
The identification (2.2) in the new coordinates becomes

$$(\begin{array}{c}T\\ X\\ y_i\\ x_{d+1}\end{array})\left(\begin{array}{c}T\\ X\\ y_i\\ x_{d+1}+2\pi R\end{array}\right),$$
(2.10)
which is the standard Kaluza-Klein identification. The trajectory in terms of these is:

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`(x_0+p_1s)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{1}{2}Eqs)+(t_0+p_0s)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{1}{2}Eqs)`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`(t_0+p_0s)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{1}{2}Eqs)+(x_0+p_1s)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{1}{2}Eqs)`$ (2.11)
Considering a particle at rest at the origin $`x_0=0`$ and $`t_0=0`$, we find

$$\frac{d^2X}{dT^2}=\frac{qE}{p_0}$$
(2.12)
This is the expected acceleration of a particle with charge and rest-mass $`q`$.

### 2.3 Kaluza-Klein Reduction

Let us now perform the dimensional reduction to $`d`$ dimensions. Using the coordinates $`\rho `$ and $`\tau `$ defined in (2.8) the $`d+1`$ dimensional metric becomes

$$ds^2=\rho ^2(d\tau +\frac{1}{2}Edx_{d+1})^2+d\rho ^2+dy_idy^i+dx_{d+1}^2,$$
(2.13)
while the identification (2.2) simplifies to a direct periodicity in $`x_{d+1}`$ with period $`2\pi R`$, leaving $`(\rho ,\tau ,y_i)`$ unchanged. We may rewrite the metric (2.13) as

$$ds^2=\frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}d\tau ^2+d\rho ^2+dy_idy^i+\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(dx_{d+1}\frac{E\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}d\tau \right)^2$$
(2.14)
with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{1}{4}E^2\rho ^2.$$
(2.15)
In this form, we can readily perform the dimensional reduction.

The $`d`$ dimensional low energy effective theory is described by the Einstein-Maxwell theory coupled to the Kaluza-Klein scalar $`V`$ via

$$S=\sqrt{g_d}\left(V^{1/2}R_d+\frac{1}{4}V^{3/2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(2.16)
Here the $`d`$-dimensional fields are obtained from the $`d+1`$ metric via the decomposition

$$ds_{d+1}^2=ds_d^2+V(dx_{d+1}+A_\mu dx^\mu )^2$$
(2.17)
Comparing (2.17) and (2.14) gives the dimensionally reduced form of the electric Melvin background

$`ds_d^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}d\tau ^2+d\rho ^2+dy_idy^i`$ (2.18)
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}},V=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2E^2.`$ (2.19)
It describes a curved space-time, together with an electric field in the $`\rho `$-direction given by

$$E_\rho \sqrt{g^{00}}_\rho A_0=\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}}.$$
(2.20)
This electric field is equal to $`E`$ at $`\rho =0`$, but diverges at $`\rho =2/E`$; this singular behavior is related to the mentioned fact that outside the region (2.5), the identification map (2.2) becomes time-like and produces closed time-like curves. Note, however, that the location of the divergence in $`E_\rho `$ slightly differs from the critical value noted in (2.5), but coincides with it in the limit of small $`ER`$.

The $`d`$ dimensional metric in (2.18) reduces for $`E=0`$ to the standard Rindler space-time metric. For finite $`E`$ there is a non-zero gravitational acceleration

$$a_\rho (\rho )g^{00}_\rho g_{00}=\frac{1}{\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(2.21)
which includes the gravitational backreaction due to the stress-energy contained in the electric field. Notice that $`a(\rho )`$ diverges at $`\rho =2/E`$.

The above static Rindler type coordinate system will be most useful for the purpose of providing a background with a static KK electric field. To obtain a more global perspective of the full electric KK Melvin space-time, we can use the coordinates $`X`$ and $`T`$ defined in eqn (2.9). In this coordinate system, the solution looks like

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dT^2+dX^2{\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(XdTTdX)^2+dy_idy^i,`$
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{EX}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}},A_1={\displaystyle \frac{ET}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}},`$ (2.22)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }1\frac{1}{4}E^2(X^2T^2).`$
In this coordinate system we can distinguish four different regions:

$`\mathrm{Region}\mathrm{I}:X>|T|,`$ $`\mathrm{Region}\mathrm{II}:X<|T|,`$
$`\mathrm{Region}\mathrm{III}:T>|X|,`$ $`\mathrm{Region}\mathrm{IV}:T<|X|.`$
Regions I and II are static regions (that is, they admit a time-like Killing vector) and are analogous to the left and right wedges of Rindler space. They are separated by a “horizon” (as seen only by static observers at $`\rho =`$ const.) at $`X^2=T^2`$ from two time-dependent regions III and IV. (See fig 2) We will mostly dealing with the physics of region I. For a discussion of the physics in region III, see .

### 2.4 Physical Boundary Conditions

In order to have in mind a physical picture of the part of this spacetime that we will be studying, we recall the Gedanken experiment as shown in fig 1, in which two charged plates produces a static KKM electric field between them. As explained in detail in Appendix A, the space-time between the two plates will correspond to a finite interval within region $`I`$:

$$\rho _1<\rho <\rho _2,\mathrm{with}0<\rho _1<\rho _2<|2/E|.$$
(2.23)
By concentrating on the physics within this region, our physical set-up will automatically exclude the unphysical regime with the closed time-like curves, as well as the horizon at $`\rho =0`$. The details of this set-up are given in Appendix A.

## 3 Particle Mechanics

In this section we consider the classical mechanics of charged particles in the electric KK-Melvin space-time, deriving the expression for the total gravitational and electrostatic potential energy. This discussion will be useful later on when we consider the quantum mechanical pair production.

### 3.1 Classical Action

The classical action for a massless particle in $`d+1`$ dimensions is

$$S_{d+1}=𝑑s\left[p__M\dot{x}^^M+\lambda (G^{^{MN}}p__Mp__N)\right],$$
(3.1)
where $`M,N=0,\mathrm{},d`$ and $`\lambda `$ denotes the lagrange multiplier imposing the zero-mass-shell condition $`G^{^{MN}}p__Mp__N=0`$. Upon reduction to $`d`$ dimensions, using the general Kaluza-Klein Ansatz (2.17), for which

$$G^{^{MN}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g^{\mu \nu }& A^\nu \\ A^\mu & V^^1+A_\mu A^\mu \end{array}\right),$$
(3.2)
where $`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},d1`$, the action (3.1) attains the form (here we drop the $`x_{d+1}`$-dependence)

$$S_d=𝑑s\left[p_\mu \dot{x}^\mu +\lambda \left(g^{\mu \nu }(p_\mu qA_\mu )(p_\nu qA_\nu )+\frac{q^2}{V}\right)\right].$$
(3.3)
Here we identified $`q=p_{d+1}`$. The $`\lambda `$ equation of motion gives

$$g^{\mu \nu }(p_\mu qA_\mu )(p_\nu qA_\nu )+\frac{q^2}{V}=0$$
(3.4)
This is the constraint equation of motion of a particle with charge $`q`$ and a (space-time dependent) mass $`m=\frac{q}{\sqrt{V}}`$. For the electric KK Melvin background (2.18), the constraint (3.4) takes the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho ^2}(p_\tau +\frac{qE\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2+p_\rho ^2+p_i^2+\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0,$$
(3.5)
or

$$\frac{p_\tau ^2}{\rho ^2}+(q\frac{1}{2}Ep_\tau )^2+p_\rho ^2+p_i^2=0.$$
(3.6)
Since the background is independent of all coordinates except $`\rho `$, all momenta are conserved except $`p_\rho `$. Let us denote these conserved quantities by

$$p_\tau =\omega ,p_i=k_i.$$
(3.7)
The constraint (3.6) allows us to solve for $`p_\rho `$ in terms of the conserved quantities as

$$p_\rho =\pm \sqrt{(\omega ^2/\rho ^2)\mu ^2},\mu ^2k_i^2+(q\frac{1}{2}E\omega )^2.$$
(3.8)
Using this expression for $`p_\rho `$, we can write the total action of a given classical trajectory purely in terms of its beginning and endpoints as

$$S_\pm (x_2,x_1)=\omega \tau _{21}+k_iy_{21}^i\pm \underset{\rho _1}{\overset{\rho _2}{}}𝑑\rho \sqrt{(\omega ^2/\rho ^2)\mu ^2}.$$
(3.9)
Performing the integral gives

$$S_\pm (x_2,x_1)=S_\pm (x_2)S_\pm (x_1),$$
(3.10)
with

$$S_\pm (\{\rho ,\tau ,y\})=k_iy^i+\omega \left(\tau \pm \tau _0(\rho ,k_i,\omega )\right),$$
(3.11)
where

$$\tau _0(\rho ,k_i,\omega )=\sqrt{1\left(\frac{\mu \rho }{\omega }\right)^2}\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\omega }{\mu \rho }\left(1+\sqrt{1\left(\frac{\mu \rho }{\omega }\right)^2}\right)\right].$$
(3.12)
This result will become useful in the following.

Notice that, for given radial location $`\rho `$, the classical trajectory only crosses this location provided the energy $`\omega `$ satisfies $`\omega \mu \rho `$ with $`\mu `$ as defined in (3.8). The physical meaning of the quantity $`\tau _0`$ in (3.12) is that it specifies the (time difference between the) instances $`\tau =\pm \tau _0`$ at which the trajectory passes through this radial location. Notice that indeed $`\tau _0=0`$ when $`\omega =\mu \rho `$, indicating that at this energy, $`\rho `$ is the turning point of the trajectory.

### 3.2 Potential Energy

We can use the mass-shell constraint (3.5) to solve for the total energy

$$Hp_\tau =\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }(p_\rho ^2+k_i^2)+q^2}\frac{qE\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(3.13)
The corresponding Hamilton equations

$$_\tau \rho =\frac{H}{p_\rho },_\tau p_\rho =\frac{H}{\rho },$$
(3.14)
determine the classical trajectory $`\rho (\tau )`$. An important quantity in the following will be the potential energy $`\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)`$, defined via

$`\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)H(p_\rho =0)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\sqrt{q^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }k_i^2}{\displaystyle \frac{qE\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.`$ (3.15)
That is, $`\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)`$ is the energy of particles, with $`p_{d+1}=q`$ and transverse momentum $`p_i=k_i`$, that have their turning point at $`\rho `$.

As expected, the potential energy $`\omega (\rho )`$ contains two contributions: the first term is the gravitational energy due to the rest mass and momentum of the particle, and the second term represents the electro-static potential. If $`qE`$ is positive, this last term makes the particle effectively lighter than its gravitational energy. The total energy for any $`qE`$, however, never becomes negative. For $`qE`$ negative, the expression (3.15) is manifestly positive. For $`qE`$ either positive or negative, it can be rewritten as

$$\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)=\frac{q^2+k_i^2}{|\frac{1}{2}qE+\rho ^1\sqrt{q^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }k_i^2}|},$$
(3.16)
which is again manifestly positive. We have plotted this function for $`k_i^2=0`$ in fig 3.2.

This behavior of the potential energy $`\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)`$ should be contrasted with the classical electrostatic case, where $`V(\rho ,q)=mqE\rho `$ with $`m`$ the rest-mass, in which case the particle can get a negative total energy. When going to single particle wave mechanics, this negative energy leads to the famous Klein paradox, and upon second quantization, to the Schwinger pair creation effect. Since in our case the potential remains positive, there is no Klein paradox and no immediate reason to expect a vacuum instability. Nonetheless, as we will see shortly, pair creation will take place.

Finally, we note that in the concrete set-up of Situation I of our Gedanken apparatus in Appendix A, the particles are in fact restricted to move within the region $`\rho _1<\rho <\rho _2`$ between the two plates. To complete the dynamical rules of the model, we need to specify what happens when the particle reaches the plates; we will simply assume reflecting boundary conditions.

## 4 Wave Mechanics

In this section we write the solutions to the wave equations in the electric KK-Melvin background, and illustrate the semi-classical correspondence with the classical mehanics.

### 4.1 Wave Equations

The $`d+1`$-dimensional wave equation in the background (2.13) is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}_M\left(\sqrt{G}G^{^{MN}}_N\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\left[\frac{1}{\rho }_\rho (\rho _\rho )\frac{1}{\rho ^2}_\tau ^2+_i^2+\left(_{d+1}+\frac{1}{2}E_\tau \right)^2\right]\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(4.1)
subject to the perioding boundary condition in the $`x_{d+1}`$ direction with period $`2\pi R`$. For a given eigenmode with $`qp_{d+1}=\frac{n}{R}`$, we can reduce the wave equation to $`d`$ dimensions, where it can be written in the form

$$\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\rho }_\rho \left(\frac{\rho }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_\rho \right)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho ^2}\left(_\tau +\frac{iqE\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2+_i^2\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(4.2)
Here we recognize the conventional wave equation

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}D_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)M^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(4.3)
of a $`d`$ dimensional charged particle with charge $`q`$ in the background (2.18) and with a position dependent mass equal to $`M^2=q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note the direct correspondence af the above wave equations with the classical equations (3.5) and (3.6). They need to be solved subject to the boundary conditions imposed by our physical set-up. In case of Situation I, see fig. A in Appendix A, we will choose to impose Dirichlet boundary conditions at the two plates

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\rho =\rho _1}=\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\rho =\rho _2}=0.$$
(4.4)
### 4.2 Mode Solutions

The $`d+1`$-dimensional wave equation is solved by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{qk\omega }=e^{ix_{d+1}(q\frac{1}{2}E\omega )+ik_iy^i+i\omega \tau }K(\omega ,\mu \rho ),$$
(4.5)
with $`\mu `$ as defined in (3.8), and where $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho )`$ solves the differential equation

$$\left((\rho _\rho )^2+\omega ^2+\mu ^2\rho ^2\right)K(\omega ,\mu \rho )=0.$$
(4.6)
The solution $`K`$ has the integral representation

$$K(\omega ,\mu \rho )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\sigma e^{i\omega \sigma i\mu \rho \mathrm{sinh}\sigma },$$
(4.7)
and can be expressed in terms of standard Bessel and Hankel functions . The functions $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho )`$ are defined for arbirary real $`\omega `$. However, upon imposing the boundary conditions that $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho _i)=0`$ at the location of the two plates, we are left with only a discrete set of allowed frequencies $`\omega _{\mathrm{}}`$. Since the corresponding mode functions (4.7) form a complete basis of solutions to (4.6), they satisfy an orthogonality relation of the form

$$\underset{\rho _1}{\overset{\rho _2}{}}𝑑\rho \rho K^{}(\omega _{_{\mathrm{}}},\mu _{_{\mathrm{}}}\rho )K(\omega __j,\mu __j\rho )=f(\omega _{\mathrm{}})\delta _{\mathrm{},j},$$
(4.8)
where $`f(\omega )`$ some given function that depends on $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$.

For large $`\omega `$ and $`\mu \rho `$, we can approximate the integral in (4.7) using the stationary phase approximation. The stationary phase condition $`\omega =\mu \rho \mathrm{cosh}\sigma `$ has two solutions

$$\sigma _\pm =\pm \mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\omega }{\mu \rho }\left(1+\sqrt{1\left(\frac{\mu \rho }{\omega }\right)^2}\right)\right]$$
(4.9)
provided $`|\omega |>\mu \rho `$, leading to

$$K(\omega ,\mu \rho )\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega \tau _0(\rho )+\frac{\pi }{4}\right)}{\sqrt{w}{}_{}{}^{^\text{4}}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{\mu \rho }{\omega }\right)^2}},\left|\omega \right|>\mu \rho ,$$
(4.10)
with $`\tau _0`$ as given in eqn (3.12). This formula is accurate for energies $`\omega `$ larger than the potential energy $`\omega (\rho )`$. For smaller energies there is no saddle-point and the function $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho )`$ is exponentially small

$$K(\omega ,\mu \rho )\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\mu \rho }}e^{\mu \rho },\left|\omega \right|<<\mu \rho $$
(4.11)
reflecting the fact that the corresponding classical trajectory has its turning point before reaching $`\rho `$.

Notice that, upon inserting (4.10), the full mode function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{qk\omega }`$ in (4.5) can be written as a sum of two semi-classical contributions

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{qk\omega }(x)\underset{\pm }{}e^{ix_{d+1}(q+\frac{1}{2}E\omega )+ik_iy^i+i\omega (\tau \pm \tau _0(\rho ,k,\omega ))}\underset{\pm }{}e^{iS_\pm (y,\tau ,\rho )},$$
(4.12)
corresponding to the left- and right-moving part of the trajectory, respectively.

## 5 Pair Creation

In this section we will compute the pair creation rate of the Kaluza-Klein particles, following three different (though related) methods. We will start with the simplest method, by looking for Euclidean “bounce” solutions. We then proceed with a more refined method of computation, more along the lines of Schwinger’s original calculation, producing the non-trivial result quoted in the introductory section. Finally, we show that the obtained result can naturally be interpreted by considering the Hawking-Unruh effect, and we use the method of Bogolyubov transformations to compute the expectation value of the charge current.

### 5.1 Classical Euclidean Trajectories

Assuming that, in spite of the fact that the effective potential (3.15) seems to suggest otherwise, the nucleation of the charged particle pairs can be viewed as the result of a quantum mechanical tunneling process, we compute the rate by considering the corresponding Euclidean classical trajectory. The analytic continuation of the electric KK Melvin space-time to Euclidean space is

$`ds_E^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}}d\theta ^2+d\rho ^2+dy_idy^i+\mathrm{\Lambda }_E\left(dx_{d+1}{\displaystyle \frac{E\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}}d\theta \right)^2,`$ (5.1)
$`A_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}},V=\mathrm{\Lambda }_E,`$
with $`\theta `$ a periodic variable with period $`2\pi `$, and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_E\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+E^2\rho ^2/4.$$
(5.2)
This Euclidean geometry is obtained from the Lorentzian electric KK Melvin solution via the replacement

$$EiE,ti\theta ,$$
(5.3)
and coincides with the space-like section of the magnetic KK Melvin space-time. Unlike the Lorentzian version, this Euclidean space-time extends over the whole range of positive $`\rho `$ values and ends smoothly at $`\rho =0`$, by virtue of the periodicity in $`\theta `$. This is standard for Euclidean cousins of space-times with event horizons, and a first indication that quantum field theory in the space-time naturally involves physics at a specific finite temperature.

The Euclidean action of a point-particle, with charge (momentum in the $`d+1`$-direction) equal to $`p_{d+1}=q`$ and mass $`M=|q|/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}`$ moving in this background reads

$$S_E=𝑑s_E,_E=\frac{|q|}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}}\sqrt{\frac{\rho ^2\dot{\theta }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}+\dot{\rho }^2+\dot{y}_i^2}\frac{qE\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}\dot{\theta }.$$
(5.4)
As a first step, let us look for closed circular classical trajectories at constant $`\rho `$ and $`y_i`$. The above point-particle action then reduces to

$$S_E(\rho )=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}(2|q|\rho qE\rho ^2).$$
(5.5)
The first term is the energy of a static particle times the length of the orbit, and the second term is the interaction with the background field times the area of the loop. Looking for an extremum yields one real and positive solution

$$|E|\rho =2\sqrt{2}2\mathrm{sign}(qE)$$
(5.6)
with total action

$$S_E=\frac{2\pi |q|}{|E|}(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sign}(qE)).$$
(5.7)
The existence of these solutions with finite Euclidean action is a first encouraging sign that pair creation may take place after all. The answer (5.5) for the Euclidean action also looks like a rather direct generalization of the standard semiclassical action for the Schwinger effect, and it is therefore tempting to conclude at this point that the total pair creation rate is proportional to

$$e^{S_E}=e^{2\pi |q|(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sign}(qE))/|E|},$$
(5.8)
which looks only like a numerical modification of the classic result (1.1). This conclusion is somewhat premature, however, since in particular the pair creation rate should depend on $`\rho `$. We would like to determine this $`\rho `$-dependence.

For this, we take a second step and consider closed Euclidean trajectories that are not necessarily circular. As in section 3, we now go to a Hamiltonian formulation. To transform the formulas in section 3 to the Euclidean set-up, we need to make, in addition to (5.3), the following replacements

$$sis,p_\rho ip_\rho ,p_iip_i,qiq.$$
(5.9)
In this way we obtain from (3.13) a Euclidean Hamiltonian

$$H_Ep_\theta =\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}\sqrt{|q|^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_E(p_\rho ^2+k_i^2)}\frac{qE\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_E},$$
(5.10)
that generates the motion of particle as a function of the Euclidean time $`\theta `$, and a corresponding potential energy

$$\omega _E(\rho ,k_i,q)H_E(p_\rho =0)=\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}\sqrt{|q|^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_Ek_i^2}+\frac{qE\rho ^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}.$$
(5.11)
In addition to a change in sign, which is the standard way in which a potential changes when going to Euclidean space, this Euclidean potential differs from (3.15) via the replacement $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$. We have drawn $`\omega _E`$ for $`k_i=0`$ in fig 5.1. Note that $`\omega _E`$ for $`k_i=0`$ is proportional to the reduced effective action (5.5) for circular trajectories, and the critical radii (5.6) reside at the two minima in fig 5.1.

Our goal is to obtain semi-classical estimate for the pair creation rate at some given $`\rho `$. How should we use this Euclidean potential for this purpose? As seen from fig 5.1, there is a range of Euclidean energies $`H_E`$ around the two minima (5.6) for which there exist stable, compact orbits. These orbits have a maximal and minimal radius, $`\rho _+`$ and $`\rho _{}`$, at which $`H_E=\omega _E(\rho _\pm )`$. The idea now is to associate to a given $`\rho `$ the corresponding Euclidean trajectory for which $`\rho `$ equals one of these extrema $`\rho _\pm `$, and then use the total action $`S_E(\rho )`$ for this trajectory to get a semi-classical estimate of the pair creation rate via

$$𝒲(\rho )e^{S_E(\rho )}.$$
(5.12)
Here it is understood that in $`S_E(\rho )`$ we undo the rotation $`EiE`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Equation (5.12) is then a clear and unambiguous formula, provided the classical orbit is closed.

In general, however, the orbits need not be closed: the period of oscillation does not need to be $`2\pi `$ or even a fraction or multiple thereof. How should we define the total classical action, to be used in (5.12) for such a trajectory?

Our proposal, that perhaps may look ad hoc at this point but will be confirmed and justified in the subsequent subsections, is to take for $`S_E`$ the total action averaged over one full rotation period of $`2\pi `$. Concretely, suppose that the compact trajectory has an “oscillation period” $`\theta _0`$, in which it goes through a full oscillation starting and returning to its maximal radial position $`\rho =\rho _+`$. We then define $`S_E(\rho )`$ as:

$$S_E(\rho )\underset{\theta \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{2\pi }{\theta }\underset{0}{\overset{\theta }{}}𝑑\theta _E(\theta ,\rho )=\frac{2\pi }{\theta _0}\underset{0}{\overset{\theta _0}{}}𝑑\theta _E(\theta ,\rho ).$$
(5.13)
With this definition, and using the results in Section 3.1, we can now easily evaluate $`S_E(\rho )`$. From (the Euclidean analog of) eqn (3.11), while noting that $`\tau _0(\rho )=0`$ since $`\rho `$ is the turn-around point, we obtain

$$S_E(\rho )=2\pi \omega (\rho ,q,k_i),$$
(5.14)
with $`\omega `$ as given in (3.15). Here we made the replacement $`EiE`$, as prescribed.

The result (5.14) together with (5.12) gives our proposed semi-classical estimate of the pair creation rate as a function of $`\rho `$. Clearly, the derivation as presented thus far needs some independent justification. It also leaves several open questions. In particular, it is not clear how we should interpret the Euclidean “bounce” solutions, given the fact that the real effective potential (3.15) doesn’t seem to lead to any tunneling. A better understanding of the physics that leads to the pair creation seems needed. In the next two subsections we will present two slightly more refined derivations of the rate, which will help answer some of these questions.

### 5.2 Sum over Euclidean Trajectories

We will now evaluate the pair creation rate, per unit time and volume, by means of the path-integral. Since we expect that this rate will be a function of longitudinal position $`\rho `$, we would like to express the final result as an integral over $`\rho `$. We start from the sum over all Euclidean trajectories

$$𝒲=𝒟p𝒟x\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}S[p,x]\right)$$
(5.15)
defined on flat d+1-dimensional space with metric and periodicity condition

$$ds_E^2=dx^{}dx+dy_idy^i+dx_{d+1}^2,$$
(5.16)
$$(x,x^{},y_i,x_{d+1})(e^{i\pi ER}x,e^{i\pi ER}x^{},y_i,x_{d+1}+2\pi R).$$
(5.17)
In the end we intend to rotate back to Lorentzian signature, replacing $`EiE`$.

We can read the expression (5.15) as a trace over the quantum mechanical Hilbert space of the single particle described by the action (3.1) or (3.3). The idea of the computation is to write this as a sum over winding sectors around the 11-th direction. For each winding number $`w`$, the closed path is such that the end-points are related via a rotation in the $`(x,x^{})`$-plane over an angle $`w\pi ER`$. Using this insight, we can write (5.15) as

$$d^dx𝒲(x)=R\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dT}{T}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{T}}\underset{w}{}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2T}}(2\pi Rw)^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\pi iwERJ}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{T}{2}}\left(p^{}p+p_i^2\right)}\right]$$
(5.18)
where $`T`$ denotes the Schwinger proper time variable, and where $`J`$ denotes the rotation generator in the $`(x,x^{})`$ plane. The exponent in front of the the trace is the d+1-dimensional part of the classical action of the trajectory with winding number $`w`$. To compute the trace, we write it as an integral over mixed position and momentum eigen states

$$\mathrm{Tr}A=d^2x\frac{\stackrel{_{^{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}x,k_i|A|x,k_i$$
(5.19)
Next we evaluate

$$x|e^{\pi iwERJ}e^{\frac{T}{2}p^{}p}|x=\frac{1}{\pi T}e^{\text{ }{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{xx^{}}{2T}}\text{ }\left(e^{\pi iERw}1\right)\left(e^{\pi iERw}1\right)}$$
(5.20)
where we used the standard formula for the heat kernel in two dimensions. Inserting this into (5.18), we can write the production rate as an integral over $`\rho `$ of

$$𝒲(\rho )=R\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dT}{T}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{T}}\frac{\stackrel{_{_{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\frac{e^{\frac{T}{2}k_i^2}}{\pi T}\underset{w}{}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2T}}\left(\left(2\pi Rw\right)^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi ERw/2\right)\right)}$$
(5.21)
which we will interpret as the pair production rate at the location $`\rho `$.

Equation (5.21) is an exact evaluation of the Euclidean functional determinant. To put it in a more useful form, we will assume that we are in the regime $`\rho ^2>>T`$ (an assumption that we will be able to justify momentarily), so that we can simplify the expression by means of the Villain approximation

$$\underset{w}{}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2T}}\left(\left(2\pi Rw\right)^2+4\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi ERw/2\right)\right)}\underset{w,n}{}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2T}}\left(\left(2\pi Rw\right)^2+\rho ^2\left(\pi ERw2\pi n\right)^2\right)}.$$
(5.22)
This replacement essentially amounts to a semi-classical approximation. The right-hand side can be re-expressed via the Poisson resummation formula (note here that the left-hand side below is just a trivial rewriting of the right-hand side above)

$$\underset{w}{}\text{ }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2T}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_E\left(2\pi Rw{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi E\rho ^2n}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}}\right)^2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4\pi ^2\rho ^2n^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}}\right)}=\sqrt{\frac{T}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_ER^2}}\underset{m}{}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_E}}\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{T}{2}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m^2}{R^2}}\text{+}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2\pi ^2\rho ^2n^2}{T}}\text{+}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i\pi Emn\rho ^2}{R}}\right)}$$
(5.23)
As the final step, we may now evaluate the integral over the Schwinger parameter $`T`$ via the saddle point approximation. The saddle points are at444We drop the term with $`n=0`$, since it corresponds to the vacuum contribution.

$$T_0=\frac{2\pi \rho |n|}{\sqrt{\frac{m^2}{R^2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_Ek_i^2}},n=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}.$$
(5.24)
Before plugging this back in to obtain our final result, let us first briefly check our assumption that $`\rho ^2>>T`$: setting $`k_i=0`$, we find $`\rho ^2/T_0=m\rho /2\pi |n|R`$. So as long as the spatial distance scale $`\rho `$ is much larger than the KK compactification radius $`R`$, we’re safe to use (5.22).

With this reassurance, we proceed and find our final answer for the pair creation rate per unit time and volume where we made the replacement $`EiE`$.555Note that the same result can be obtained by replacing the sum in (5.21) by (5.23), integrating over $`T`$ exactly, and then using eqn (4.11) to approximate the resulting Bessel function.

$$𝒲(\rho )=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\rho ^{3/2}}\frac{\stackrel{_{^{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\underset{m}{}\left(\frac{m^2}{R^2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }k_i^2\right)^{1/4}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi n\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)\right]$$
(5.25)
where $`\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)`$ is the potential energy introduced in equation (3.15). The summation over $`n`$ in (5.25) can be seen to correspond to the “winding number” of the Euclidean trajectory around the periodic Euclidean time direction. The $`n=1`$ term dominates, and is the result announced in the Introduction. Before discussing it further, we will now proceed with a second method of derivation.

### 5.3 The Hawking-Unruh effect

The result (5.25) looks like a thermal partition function, indicating that it can be understood as produced via the Hawking-Unruh effect. We will now make this relation more explicit.

The functional integral (5.15) over all Euclidean paths represent the one-loop partition function of a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the d+1-dimensional electric KK Melvin space-time. We can compute this determinant also directly via canonical quantization of this field. The full expansion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into modes starts with a decomposition over wave numbers along the extra dimension (in this section we restrict $`q`$ to be positive)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(e^{iqx_{d+1}}\mathrm{\Phi }_q+e^{iqx_{d+1}}\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}\right),$$
(5.26)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is massless and real, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q`$ are complex and have mass $`m=q`$. Let us define $`\mu _+`$ and $`\mu _{}`$ via

$$\mu _+^2=(q+\frac{1}{2}\omega E)^2+k_i^2,\mu _{}^2=(q+\frac{1}{2}\omega E)^2+k_i^2,$$
(5.27)
so that now $`\mu _\pm `$ are quantities related to positively or negatively charged particles.

To proceed, we now need to expand the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q`$ in creation and annihilation modes, allowing only modes that satisfy the boundary conditions (4.4) that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q(\rho _i)=0`$ at the location of the two charged plates.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_q=\underset{\omega >0}{}\frac{\stackrel{_{_{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\frac{e^{i\omega \tau +ik_iy^i}}{\sqrt{\omega f(\omega )}}\left(K(\omega ,\mu _+\rho )a_q(k_i,\omega )+K^{}(\omega ,\mu _{}\rho )a_q^{}(k_i,\omega )\right),$$
(5.28)
with $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho )`$ and $`f(\omega )`$ as defined in (4.7) and (4.8). The creation and annihilation modes then satisfy the usual commutation relations.

$$[a_{\pm q}(k_1,\omega _1),a_{\pm q}^{}(k_2,\omega _2)]=\delta (k_1k_2)\delta _{\omega _1\omega _2}.$$
(5.29)
Our goal is to determine what the natural vacuum state of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field looks like, as determined by the initial conditions. In the far past, we imagine that the KK electric field was completely turned off. The electric KK Melvin background then reduced to Rindler or Minkowski space – depending on which coordinate system one introduces. The most reasonable initial condition is that the quantum state of all $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ quanta starts out in the vacuum as defined in the Minkowski coordinate system. Let us denote this Minkowski vacuum by $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

To determine the expression for $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in terms of our mode basis, we can follow the standard procedure  . We will not go into the details of this calculation here, except to mention one key ingredient: the mode functions, when extended over the full range of $`\rho `$ values, have a branch-cut at the horizon at $`\rho =0`$, such that

$$K(\omega ,\mu \rho )=e^{\pm 2\pi \omega }K^{}(\omega ,\mu \rho ),$$
(5.30)
depending on whether the branch cut lies in the upper or lower-half plane. This behavior of $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho )`$ near $`\rho =0`$ is sufficient to deduce the form of the Bogolyubov transformation relating the modes $`a(\omega ,k)`$ to the Minkowksi creation and annihilation modes. (see e.g. ). As a result, one finds that the Minkowski vacuum, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, behaves like a thermal density matrix for the observable creation and annihilation modes in (5.28). In particular, the number operator for each mode has the expectation value

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|a_q^{}(k,\omega )a_q(k,\omega )|\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{e^{2\pi \omega }1},$$
(5.31)
while the overlap of $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the empty vacuum state, defined via $`a_q(k,\omega )|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ =0, becomes

$`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{^{_{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\underset{q,\omega }{}\left|\mathrm{log}\left(1e^{2\pi \omega }\right)\right|}\right]`$ (5.32)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{^{_{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\underset{q,\omega ,n}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{2n\pi \omega }}\right].`$ (5.33)
This expression represents the probability that the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not contain any particles – and its dominant $`n=1`$ term looks indeed closely related to the result (5.25) obtained in the previous subsection.

The difference between the two equations is that (5.25) is defined at a particular location $`\rho `$, while (5.32) contains a summation over all frequencies. To make the relation more explicit, imagine placing some measuring device at a location $`\rho `$. As mentioned before, only modes with a sufficiently large frequency will reach this location with any appreciable probability, and the probability attains a maximum for frequencies equal to the potential energy at $`\rho `$, since for those frequencies, $`\rho `$ is the turning point. Via this observation, we can view the position $`\rho `$ as a parametrization of the space of frequencies, via the insertion of

$$1=𝑑\rho \delta \left(\omega \omega (\rho )\right)|_\rho \omega (\rho )|,$$
(5.34)
with $`\omega (\rho )`$ as given in eqn (3.15), thus replacing the summation over $`\omega `$ in (5.32) by an integral over $`\rho `$. The integrand at given $`\rho `$ is then naturally interpreted as the production rate (5.25) at the corresponding location. This procedure is a good approximation provided the distance $`d=\rho _2\rho _1`$ between the plates is large enough, so that many frequencies contribute in the sum.

This same condition is also important for a second reason . Since we would like to imagine that the pair production takes place at a constant rate per unit time, we would like to see that the overlap (5.32) in fact decays exponentially with time. This comes about as follows . Suppose we restrict the field modes to be supported over a finite time interval $`0<\tau <T`$. This translates into a discreteness of the frequencies. Ignoring at first the other discreteness due to the reflecting boundary condition at the two parallel plates, it is clear that the density of frequencies allowed by the time restriction grows linearly with $`T`$. The sum over the frequencies thus produces an overall factor of $`T`$. In this way, we recover the expected exponential decay of the overlap (5.32).

This exponential behavior breaks down, however, as soon as the time interval $`T`$ becomes of the same order as the distance $`d`$ between the plates, or more precisely, when $`1/T`$ approaches the distance between the discrete energy levels allowed by the reflecting boundary conditions at the plates. At this time scale, the situation gradually enters into a steady state, in which the pair creation rate gets balanced by an equally large annihilation rate. The system then reaches a thermal equilibrium, specified by the thermal expectation value (5.31). The physical temperature of the final state depends on the location $`\rho `$ via

$$\beta =2\pi \sqrt{g_{_{00}}}=\frac{2\pi \rho }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$
(5.35)
Note that this temperature diverges at $`\rho =0`$ and $`\rho =|2/E|`$; neither location is within our physical region, however.

### 5.4 Charge Current

It is edifying to consider the vacuum expectation value of the charge current, since this is a clear physical, observer-independent quantity and a sensitive measure of the local profile of the pair creation rate. For given $`q`$, the charge current is given by

$$j_\mu =iq\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}(\rho )_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_q(\rho )\mathrm{\Phi }_q(\rho )_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}(\rho )\right).$$
(5.36)
Using the result (5.31) for the expectation value of the number operator, one finds that the time component of the current, the charge density, is non-zero and equal to666Instead of the expectation value (5.37), one could also consider the mixed in-out expectation value $`0|J_\tau (\rho )|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is related to the derivative of the in-out matrix element $`0|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to $`E`$. This relation was in fact used by Schwinger in his original derivation of the pair creation rate .

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|j_\tau (\rho )|\mathrm{\Omega }=J_+(\rho )J_{}(\rho )$$
(5.37)
with

$$J_\pm (\rho )=q\underset{\omega >0}{}\frac{\stackrel{_{^{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^{d2}}\frac{|K(\omega ,\mu _\pm \rho )|^2}{f(\omega )\left(e^{2\pi \omega }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)}$$
(5.38)
the positive and negative charge contributions, respectively. Given the thermal nature of the state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the physical origin of this charge density is clear: the presence of the electric field reduces the potential energy of one of the two charge sectors, thereby reducing its Boltzmann suppression, relative to the oppositely charged.

To obtain a rough estimate for the behavior of $`J_\pm (\rho )`$, it is useful to divide the frequency sum into three regions: i) $`\omega `$ comparable to the potential energy (3.15), ii) $`\omega `$ much larger, or iii) $`\omega `$ much smaller. By comparing the respective suppression factors, we find that the leading semi-classical contribution comes from regime i); this is also reasonable from a physical perspective, since these are the particles that spend most time near $`\rho `$. Regime ii) is strongly Boltzmann suppressed and clearly negligible compared to contribution i), while regime iii) is suppressed because the corresponding mode functions $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho )`$ are exponentially small at the location $`\rho `$, via (4.11). The leading contribution of region i) is of order $`e^{2\pi \omega (\rho ,q,k_i)}`$, in accordance with the result (5.25) for the pair creation rate $`𝒲`$$`(\rho )`$.

Since the mode functions $`K(\omega ,\mu \rho )`$ are real (they are the sum of an incoming and reflected wave), the current in the $`\rho `$ direction appears to vanish. The result (5.38) for the charge density indeed looks static. This static answer, however, can not describe the time-dependent pair creation process. Recalling our discussion above, however, we can recover this time-dependence by restricting the sum over only those frequencies necessary to cover the finite time interval $`0<\tau <T`$. This is a $`T`$ dependent subset, thus leading to a $`T`$ dependent (initially linearly growing) charge density. However, when $`1/T`$ becomes much smaller than the step-size in the allowed frequency spectrum, the steady state sets in and the charge density indeed becomes a static thermal distribution given by (5.37)–(5.38).

## 6 Discussion

In this paper we have tried to make a systematic study of the Schwinger pair production of charged Kaluza-Klein particles. Due to their characteristic property that their mass is of the same order as their charge $`q`$, the pair creation requires such strong KK electric fields that gravitational backreaction can not be ignored. We have included this backreaction by means of the electric KK Melvin solution, and shown that, in spite of the fact that the electro-static potential can not be made to exceed the rest-mass of the KK particles, pair production takes place at a rate given by (1.2).

What is the physical mechanism that is responsible for the pair creation? Our final answer (1.2) includes both the KK electric field and a gravitational acceleration $`a`$. It is instructive to compare this result with the known rate  for Schwinger pair production in an accelerated frame, as quoted in eqn (B.4) in the Appendix. Since in our case $`a`$ is bounded below by $`E/2`$, we can only directly compare the two answers in the limit of small electric field. In that limit, if we expand the log in eqn (B.4) and take the dominant $`n=1`$ term there, both answers become

$$𝒲(E,a)\underset{q=\pm |q|}{}\frac{\stackrel{_{^{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \left(\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{q^2+k_i^2}\frac{qE}{2a^2}\right)\right).$$
(6.1)
In this regime, however, one can not honestly separate the Schwinger pair creation effect from the pair creation effect due to the acceleration. Electric charge is being produced, but it is just a simple consequence of the fact that the electrostatic potential reduces the Boltzmann factor for one type of charge, while increasing it for the other. Rather than producing the charge “on its own,” the electric field just polarizes the thermal atmosphere produced by the Unruh effect.

In fact, if we write the potential $`\omega (\rho ,q,k_i)`$ as in (3.15) instead of (3.16), our final answer (1.2) appears to be just a small modification of (6.1) and the physics that leads to it indeed seems quite identical. So depending on taste, one can either interpret our result (1.2) as pair creation due to a combination of the Schwinger and Unruh effect, or as the result of the Unruh effect only. There is no definite way to decide between the two, since the gravitational acceleration can not be turned off independently. Either way, what is clear is that the mechanism for pair creation cannot be given a tunneling interpretation.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank O. Ganor, N. Itzhaki, K.T. McDonald, and A.M. Polyakov for helpful discussions. T.F. would also like to thank the organizers of the Cargese Summer School 2002, where some of this work was carried out.

The work of T.F. is supported in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, in part by a Soros Fellowship for New Americans, and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9802484. The work of H.V. is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 98-02484.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the Soros Foundation.

Appendix

## A Gedanken Apparatus

For a good understanding of the situation we wish to study, it will be useful to investigate how, via a concrete Gedanken experiment, one may in fact attempt to create a large static Kaluza-Klein electric field. Without taking into account gravitational backreaction, we imagine taking two parallel plates with opposite KK charge density per unit area $`\sigma `$ and perpendicular distance $`d`$, thus creating an electric field $`E=4\pi \sigma `$ in the region between the plates. It turns out however, that when we include the gravitational backreaction of both the plates and the electric field, there are some restrictions on how symmetric, or static, we can choose our experimental set-up.

Consider two charged, infinitesimally thin, parallel plates at positions $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, separated by a distance

$$d=\rho _2\rho _1.$$
(A.1)
The two plates divide space into three regions: Region A left of the first plate, given by $`\rho <\rho _1`$, region B in between the two plates, $`\rho _1<\rho <\rho _2`$, and region C right of the second plate $`\rho >\rho _2`$.

Let the mass densities of the plates be given by $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$, so that

$$T_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}^0=\mu _1\delta (\rho \rho _1)+\mu _2\delta (\rho \rho _2).$$
(A.2)
In addition, the two plates have charge densities $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$

$$\sqrt{g_{00}}T_{d+1}^0=\sigma _1\delta (\rho \rho _1)+\sigma _2\delta (\rho \rho _2).$$
(A.3)
We will assume that the charge densities are opposite, $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2`$, and tuned so that there is a Kaluza-Klein electric field in region B between the plates, but none in regions A or C outside the plates. The region between the plates therefore takes the form of a static slice $`\rho _1<\rho <\rho _2`$ of the electric KK Melvin space-time. The two regions outside the plates, on the other hand, are just flat. More precisely, since the parallel plates in effect produce an attractive gravitational force on freely falling particles in the two outside regions, the regions A and C should correspond to static sub-regions in Rindler space.

Both Rindler space and the electric KK Melvin solution differ from Minkowski space only via the $`g_{00}`$ component. Imposing continuity at $`\rho =\rho _i`$, this leads us to the following Ansatz for the $`g_{00}`$ component of the metric in the three regions

$`g_{00}^A(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1a_1(\rho \rho _1)\right)^2g_{00}^B(\rho _1),`$
$`g_{00}^B(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{1E^2\rho ^2/4}},`$
$`g_{00}^C(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+a_2(\rho \rho _2)\right)^2g_{00}^B(\rho _2).`$ (A.4)
Here $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are both positive, and represent the respective free fall accelerations of freely moving particles just outside of the two plates. In other words, via the equivalence principle, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are the accelerations (to the left and right, respectively) of the two plates as viewed from the outside Minkowski observers. The quantities $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ play a similar role, and can be both positive and negative. A physical restriction, however, is that the denominator in the expression (A) for $`g_{00}^B`$ remains positive.

In addition there is a non-trivial electric potential $`g_{0,d+1}^B`$ in the region between the plates, while $`g_{0,d+1}^{A,C}`$ are constants determined by continuity:

$`g_{0,d+1}^A(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`g_{0,d+1}^B(\rho _1),`$
$`g_{0,d+1}^B(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2E/2}{1E^2\rho ^2/4}},`$ (A.5)
$`g_{0,d+1}^C(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`g_{0,d+1}^B(\rho _2).`$
The d+1-dimensional Einstein equations of motion result in the following jump conditions for the normal variations of $`g_{00}`$ and $`g_{0,d+1}`$ at the location of the plates777Note that while the expressions $`g_{0,d+1}`$ are not gauge invariant, the Gauss equation is, as long as $`\lambda `$ in $`A_\mu dx^\mu A_\mu dx^\mu +d\lambda `$ is smooth across $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, i.e. $`(_{\rho _+}_\rho _{})\lambda |_{\rho =\rho _i}=0.`$

$`4\pi \mu _i`$ $`=`$ $`g^{00}(_{\rho _+}g_{00}_\rho _{}g_{00})|_{\rho =\rho _i},`$ (A.6)
$`4\pi \sigma _i`$ $`=`$ $`(g^{00})^{\frac{1}{2}}(_{\rho _+}g_{0,d+1}_\rho _{}g_{0,d+1})|_{\rho =\rho _i}.`$ (A.7)
The first of these equations is known as the Israel equation, while the second is equivalent to Gauss’ law in electro-magnetism. Inserting our Ansatz, the Israel jump conditions become

$`2\pi \mu _1`$ $`=`$ $`a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}}`$ (A.8)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=1\frac{1}{4}E^2\rho _i^2`$
$`2\pi \mu _2`$ $`=`$ $`a_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}}`$
while Gauss’ law takes to the form

$$4\pi \sigma _1=E/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{3/2},4\pi \sigma _2=E/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{3/2}.$$
(A.9)
Equation (A.8) relates the mass density of the two plates to the jump in the surface acceleration when moving from one to the other side, while (A.9) relates the charge density to the jump in the KK electric field.

Let us briefly check these formulae by considering some special cases. If $`E=0`$, then we can choose the symmetric situation $`\mu _1=\mu _2`$ and $`a_1=a_2`$. Via (A.8) this implies that we should take the limit $`\rho _i\mathrm{}`$ keeping the distance (A.1) fixed. The intermediate region $`B`$ then simply reduces to flat Minkowski space. This is as expected, since the two plates lead to an equal and opposite gravitational force, which exactly cancels in the intermediate region. For non-zero $`E`$, yet small electro-static potential $`V_{12}=Ed`$ between the plates, we can choose parameters such that $`E\rho _i<<1`$ and $`\rho _i>>d`$. Eqn (A.9) then reduces to the standard Gauss law of Maxwell theory.

Let’s now consider the general case. There are four equations, and (for given inter-plate distance $`d`$, and densities $`\mu _i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ ) four unknowns: $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`\rho _1`$ and $`E`$. The second equation in (A.9), however, is not really independent from the first, since we should rather read it as a fine-tuning condition on $`\sigma _2`$ (relative to $`\sigma _1`$) ensuring that the $`E`$-field vanishes outside the two plates. Discarding this equation, we are thus left with one overall freedom, namely, the overall acceleration of the center of mass of our apparatus.

For practical purposes, we would have preferred to restrict ourselves to the simplest and most symmetric case in which the two plates have equal mass density $`\mu _1=\mu _2`$ and equal surface acceleration $`a_1=a_2`$. This would in particular ensure that our apparatus is at rest. As seen from eqn (A.8), this symmetric situation could be reached if we could take the limit $`\rho _i\mathrm{}`$. However, for non-zero $`E`$, this limit is forbidden via the restriction $`1\frac{1}{4}E^2\rho ^2>0`$. Thus we are basically forced to consider the general situation with $`\mu _i`$ and $`a_i`$ arbitrary, and $`\rho _i`$ both positive. We call this:

$$\mathrm{Situation}\mathrm{I}:0<\rho _1<\rho _2<2/E,\mu _i\mathrm{arbitrary}$$
(A.10)
In this case, the region of interest, region B, represents a static slice in the right wedge of the electric KK Melvin solution. This Situation I is the natural generalization of a constant, static electric field, and is our starting point for studying the possible Schwinger pair creation of charged KK particles. We sketch it in Fig. 5.

There is, however, another situation we could consider, which does allow for a symmetric solution. Namely we can choose:

$$\mathrm{Situation}\mathrm{II}:\mu _1=\mu _2,a_1=a_2,\rho _1=\rho _2.$$
(A.11)
In this case the region B includes the special position $`\rho =0`$ at which $`g_{00}=0`$, the location of the event horizon of the electric KK Melvin geometry (see Fig. 6).

To better understand the experimental conditions leading to Situation II, consider the special case $`\mu _1=\mu _2=0`$, and $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2=0`$. This describes two plates with zero mass and charge, accelerating away from each other with equal but opposite acceleration $`a_i=1/\rho _i`$. It is now easy to imagine that one can gradually add mass and charge to the plates, and reach the general Situation II. It must be noted that this experimental set-up does not lead to a static background, since the geometry now includes the time-dependent regions III and IV enclosed by the Rindler horizon (see fig 1). This set-up is therefore not a direct analog of the static electric field considered by Schwinger. For a discussion of Situation II see ; our main focus is Situation I.

## B Schwinger meets Rindler

In this Appendix we summarize the known result for the Schwinger pair creation rate in an accelerating frame  of charged particles with mass $`q`$ and mass $`m`$ with $`m<<q`$. In this regime, pair creation starts to occur while the gravitational backreaction of the electric field is still negligible.

The closest analog of a constant, uniform gravitation field is Rindler space

$$ds^2=\rho ^2d\tau ^2+d\rho ^2+dy_i^2.$$
(B.1)
Particles, or detectors, located at a given $`\rho `$ undergo a uniform acceleration $`a=1/\rho `$. Consider a charged field propagating in this space in the presence of a uniform electric field, described by

$$A_\tau =\frac{1}{2}E\rho ^2.$$
(B.2)
The resulting scalar wave equation reads

$$\left(\frac{1}{\rho }_\rho \left(\rho _\rho \right)\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\left(_\tau +\frac{i}{2}qE\rho ^2\right)^2+_i^2m^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(B.3)
The above three equations are connected to the ones in Section 4.1 by setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ (which indeed amounts to turning off the backreaction) and by setting $`m=q`$ above.

Eqn (B.3) has known mode solutions with given Rindler frequency, in terms of Whittaker functions . These functions have a relatively intricate, but known (eqn 9.233 in ), branch-cut structure at $`\rho =0`$, from which one can straightforwardly extract the linear combination of (left and right wedge) Rindler creation and annihilation modes that annihilate the Minkowski vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$. One obtains the following result for the total pair creation rate per unit time and (transverse) volume

$$𝒲\underset{q=\pm |q|}{}𝑑\omega \frac{\stackrel{_{^{d2}}}{}dk_i}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^{2\pi \omega }\right)\left(1e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi (m^2+k_i^2)}{|qE|}}}\right)}{1e^{2\pi \left(\omega +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m^2+k_i^2}{2|qE|}}\right)}}\right).$$
(B.4)
As explained in Section 5.3, we can extract from this result the pair creation rate at a given radial location $`\rho `$, or equivalently, given acceleration $`a=1/\rho `$, by equating the frequency $`\omega `$ with the classical potential energy at this location

$$\omega (q,k_i)=\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{q^2+k_i^2}\frac{qE}{2a^2}.$$
(B.5)
As discussed in section 6, in the limit where the electric field is small, the expression (B.4) reduces to our result.


format: text

text:
# Tripartite GHZ state generation with trapped ion in an optical cavity

## Abstract

We present a single step scheme to generate, experimentally, maximally entangled tripartite GHZ state in a single ion, using trapped ion interacting simultaneously with a resonant external laser field and red sideband tuned quantized cavity field. Besides the simplicity of execution and short operation time, GHZ state generation is reduction free.

Recent interest in tripartite entanglement is motivated by possible use in quantum information processing. Tripartite entangled states have been shown to be advantageous in comparison with bipartite Bell states in quantum teleportation  and quantum dense coding . In particular, three qubit Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ)  state is found to be the maximally entangled state  in the sense that it violates Bell inequalities maximally. GHZ state is unique in the sense that two qubit EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) state between any chosen pair of qubits can be obtained from it. However, reversible generation of GHZ from pairwise distribution of EPR states among three parties is not possible . Experimental efforts to realize multipartite entanglement include photon polarization experiments , Nuclear Magnetic resonance , atoms-cavity experiments , trapped ions  and more recently ions trapped inside an optical cavity . For controlled information processing, cold ions in a linear trap  offer a promising approach, as each ion allows two qubit state manipulation. With the ion trap placed inside a high finesse optical cavity, we have at hand a tripartite system with additional control mechanism offered by quantized cavity field. In this letter a single step scheme to generate three qubit maximally entangled GHZ state, using trapped ion interacting simultaneously with a resonant external laser and sideband tuned quantized cavity field, is presented.

Consider a two level ion radiated by the single mode cavity field of frequency $`\omega _c`$ and an external laser field of frequency $`\omega _L`$. Interaction with external laser field as well as the cavity field, generates entanglement of internal states of the ion, vibrational states of ionic center of mass motion and the cavity field state. The Hamiltonian, for the case when center of the trap is close to the node of cavity field standing wave, is given by

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_{int},`$ (1)
$`\widehat{H}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\nu \left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}\omega _c\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{2}}\sigma _z,`$ (2)
$`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _+\mathrm{exp}[i\eta _L(\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{a})i\omega _Lt]+h.c.]`$ (4)
$`+\mathrm{}g(\sigma _++\sigma _{})\left(\widehat{b}^{}+\widehat{b}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\eta _c(\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{a})\right],`$
where $`\widehat{a}^{}(\widehat{a})`$ and $`\widehat{b}^{}(\widehat{b})`$ are creation(destruction) operators for vibrational phonon and cavity field photon respectively and $`\omega _0`$ the transition frequency of the two-level ion. The ion-phonon and ion-cavity coupling constants are $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`g`$, whereas $`\sigma _k(k=z,+,)`$ are the Pauli operators qualifying the internal state of the ion. The Lamb-Dicke (LD) parameters relative to the laser field and the cavity field are denoted by $`\eta _L`$ and $`\eta _c`$ respectively.

The interaction picture Hamiltonian, determined by unitary transformation $`U_0(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i\widehat{H_0}t}{\mathrm{}}\right]`$ , is given in a detailed form in Eq. (4) of ref. . Consider the ion interacting simultaneously with a resonant external laser field of frequency $`\omega _L=\omega _0`$ and red sideband tuned quantized cavity field, $`\omega _0\omega _c=\nu .`$ In rotating wave approximation, the relevant part of the interaction picture Hamiltonian is

$`\widehat{H_I}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _+\widehat{O}_0^L+\sigma _{}\widehat{O}_0^L]`$ (6)
$`+\mathrm{}g[\sigma _+\widehat{b}\eta _c\widehat{O}_1^c\widehat{a}+h.c.],`$
where

$$\widehat{O}_k=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\eta ^2}{2}\right)\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i\eta )^{2p}\widehat{a}^p\widehat{a}^p}{p!\left(p+k\right)!}.$$
(7)
The matrix element of diagonal operator $`\widehat{O}_k`$ for a given vibrational state $`m`$ is given by

$$m\left|\widehat{O}_k\right|m=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\eta ^2}{2})\underset{p=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{(i\eta _L)^{2p}m!}{p!\left(p+k\right)!(mp)!}.$$
(8)
To obtain unitary time evolution of the system, we work in the basis $`|g,m,n,`$ $`|e,m,n,`$ $`|g,m1,n1,`$ and $`|e,m1,n1`$ where $`m,n=0,1,..,\mathrm{}`$ denote the state of ionic vibrational motion and quantized cavity field, respectively. The matrix representation of operator $`\widehat{H_I}`$ in the chosen basis is

$$H_I=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m,m}^L& 0& \mathrm{}gF_{m,m1}^c\sqrt{n}\\ \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m,m}^L& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m1,m1}^L\\ \mathrm{}gF_{m,m1}^c\sqrt{n}& 0& \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }F_{m1,m1}^L& 0\end{array}\right],$$
(9)
where $`F_{m,m}^L=m\left|\widehat{O}_0\right|m`$, $`F_{m,m1}^c=m\left|\eta _c\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{O}_1^c\right|m1`$. Working in the Lamb-Dicke regime that is $`\eta _L1`$ and $`\eta _c1`$ , where $`F_{m,m}^L1`$ for all $`m`$ and $`F_{m,m1}^c\eta _c\sqrt{m}`$, we get to the lowest order in $`\eta _L`$ and $`\eta _c,`$ the matrix

$$H_I^{LD}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& \mathrm{}g\eta _c\sqrt{mn}\\ \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\\ \mathrm{}g\eta _c\sqrt{mn}& 0& \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(10)
An analytic solution of time dependent Schrödinger equation

$$H_I^{LD}\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=i\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }(t)$$
(11)
is easily found for a given initial state of the system. For the initial states $`|g,m1,n1`$, and $`|e,m1,n1`$, defining $`a=g\eta _c\sqrt{mn}`$ and $`\mu =\sqrt{a^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2}`$, we obtain

$`|g,m1,n1`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\mu }}\mathrm{sin}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)+\mathrm{cos}(at)\mathrm{cos}(\mu t)\right]|g,m1,n1`$ (15)
$`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }}\mathrm{cos}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)\right]|e,m1,n1`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }}\mathrm{sin}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)\right]|g,m,n`$
$`+i[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\mu }}\mathrm{cos}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)\mathrm{sin}(at)\mathrm{cos}(\mu t))]|e,m,n`$
and

$`|e,m1,n1`$ $``$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}(at)\mathrm{cos}(\mu t){\displaystyle \frac{a}{\mu }}\mathrm{sin}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)\right]|e,m1,n1`$ (19)
$`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }}\mathrm{cos}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)\right]|g,m1,n1`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu }}\mathrm{sin}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)\right]|e,m,n`$
$`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\mu }}\mathrm{cos}(at)\mathrm{sin}(\mu t)+\mathrm{sin}(at)\mathrm{cos}(\mu t)\right]|g,m,n`$
From Eqs. (15 ,and 19), for interaction time $`t_p`$ such that $`\mu t_p=p\pi `$, $`p=1,2,\mathrm{}.`$, we find the system in following three qubit entangled states,

$`|g,m1,n1`$ $``$ $`(1)^p\left[\mathrm{cos}(at_p)|g,m1,n1i\mathrm{sin}(at_p)|e,m,n\right],`$ (20)
$`|e,m1,n1`$ $``$ $`(1)^p\left[\mathrm{cos}(at_p)|e,m1,n1i\mathrm{sin}(at_p)|g,m,n\right].`$ (21)
When the initial state is $`|g,m1,n1`$, choosing $`at_p=\frac{\pi }{4},`$ we get maximally entangled tripartite two mode GHZ state, with

$$|g,m1,n1\frac{(1)^p}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|g,m1,n1i|e,m,n\right),$$
(22)
which for the choice $`n=m=1`$ corresponds to

$$|g,0,0\frac{(1)^p}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|g,0,0i|e,1,1\right).$$
(23)
For this special case, where the resonator is initially in vacuum state, and ion prepared in it’s ground state with zero vibrational quanta, the shortest operation time corresponds to the choice $`p=1`$. This implies that $`\frac{\mu }{a}=4`$ ; $`\mu =\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{15}}`$ giving $`t_10.34\mu s`$, using the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }=8.95MHz`$ . To satisfy the condition $`\frac{\mu }{a}=4`$ we must fine tune the coupling constants and the cavity Lamb-Dicke parameter such that $`g=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\eta _c\sqrt{15}}`$. We recall that if the ion is not placed exactly at the node, ion-quantized field interaction is $`\mathrm{}g(\sigma _++\sigma _{})\left(\widehat{b}^{}+\widehat{b}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\eta _c(\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{a})+\varphi \right].`$ It is easily verified that the only change in final result is that coupling constant $`g`$ is replaced by an effective coupling constant $`g^{}=g\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$. Adjustment of phase $`\varphi `$ offers a mechanism for the required fine tuning. The GHZ state can be detected by cavity-photon measurement combined with atomic population inversion measurement.

We can verify that for initial states $`|e,0,0`$, $`|g,1,1`$, and $`|e,1,1`$, after interaction time $`t_1`$, the state of the system is

$`|e,0,0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|e,0,0i|g,1,1\right),`$ (24)
$`|g,1,1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|g,1,1i|e,0,0\right),`$ (25)
$`|e,1,1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|e,1,1i|g,0,0\right),`$ (26)
where initial state is entangled with it’s flipped state (having all three qubit states rotated by $`\pi `$).

The merits of our proposal are simplicity of execution and short operation time. In comparison, the implementation of a recent proposal  for preparation of GHZ state using two separate traps with a single ion each, placed in a high-Q cavity, requires a qubit rotation, followed by two CNOT gates on cavity and ionic vibrational states. Three qubit GHZ state generated in our scheme is unique in that internal states and vibrational states of massive ion are maximally entangled with photon which can serve as an interface for quantum communication. It is important to note that tripartite GHZ is generated without resorting to measurement and consequent reduction. In case the purpose is using maximally entangled state for quantum computation, teleportation or cloning, state reduction is not a desirable feature.

S.S.S thanks Unicamp for hospitality.


text:
# Anomalous temperature dependence of the dephasing time in mesoscopic Kondo wires

## Abstract

We present measurements of the magnetoconductance of long and narrow quasi one-dimensional gold wires containing magnetic iron impurities in a temperature range extending from $`15`$mK to $`4.2`$K. The dephasing rate extracted from the weak antilocalisation shows a pronounced plateau in a temperature region of $`300`$mK - $`800`$mK, associated with the phase breaking due to the Kondo effect. Below the Kondo temperature the dephasing rate decreases linearly with temperature, in contradiction with standard Fermi-liquid theory. Our data suggest that the formation of a spin glass due to the interactions between the magnetic moments are responsible for the observed anomalous temperature dependence.

The understanding of quantum coherence in metallic systems is one of the most important challenges in mesoscopic physics. This very fundamental problem addresses the “historic” question of the ground state of an electron gas at zero temperaturepines+nozieres  and is also relevant to the recent question of the possible realisation of quantum computers. It is well known that the coupling of electrons to an environment is a very efficient source of decoherence. In metallic conductors, this coupling may be electron-electron interaction, electron-phonon interaction or scattering by magnetic impurities. In the “standard” theory of metallic conductorsaltshuler , the dephasing rate, defined as $`\gamma _\varphi =1/\tau _\varphi `$, where $`\tau _\varphi `$ is the dephasing time, is supposed to vanish at zero temperature, as both electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions go as simple power laws of the temperature $`T`$.

Recently, Mohanty et al. have suggested that the phase coherence time $`\tau _\varphi `$ saturates at low temperature, in contradiction with theoretical predictionsmohanty\_prl\_97 . Based on their own data on gold wires as well as several experiments of different groups, the authors claim that the observed saturation is universal. However, another experiment on pure silver and pure gold wiressaclay  shows that the standard theory is verified in these samples, while other experiments show that the low temperature behaviour of the dephasing rate depends on the geometrical parameters of the samplenatelson\_prl\_00 . It has been argued that the observed saturation of $`\tau _\varphi `$ may be due to inelastic coupling of the electrons to two-level systemstls . On the other hand, an alternative and controversial interpretation of these experiments is that the observed saturation is indeed *intrinsic* and due to electron-electron interactionszaikin .

In this context, the understanding of the role of magnetic impurities is crucial. It is well known that in metals the interaction of conduction electrons with magnetic impurities gives rise to the Kondo effectkondo . The most widely studied consequence of this is the logarithmic increase of the resistivity of metals containing magnetic impurities below a certain temperature, the Kondo temperature $`T_K`$. The influence of Kondo impurities on the dephasing rate, on the other hand, is by far much less well understood: although the scattering rate and the energy relaxation time have been addressed theoreticallynagaoka\_suhl , it should be emphasized that these models are valid only strictly within the limit $`T>T_K`$. Below $`T_K`$, the interplay between the magnetic scattering and the screening of the magnetic impurities by the surrounding conduction electrons, the Kondo cloud, is certainly an important source for new physical phenomena. This points out the crucial need for new experiments relating the Kondo effect and the dephasing time at low temperatures.

In this Letter we report on the temperature dependence of the magnetoresistance and resistivity of quasi one-dimensional (1D) long and narrow Au/Fe Kondo wires down to $`15`$mK. We show that the dephasing rate due to Kondo impurities scattering exhibits a maximum around $`T_K`$. Below $`T_K`$ the dephasing rate continues to decrease, but does not follow the prediction of standard Fermi-liquid theory. We show that in this new regime below $`T_K`$, the dephasing rate varies linearly with temperature and that the interactions between the magnetic moments are responsible for the observed anomalous temperature dependence.

The samples are fabricated on silicon substrate using electron beam lithography on polymethyl-methacrylate resist. The metal is deposited using a Joule evaporator and lift-off technique. A $`1`$nm thin titanium layer is evaporated prior to the gold evaporation in order to improve adhesion to the substrate. For the gold evaporation we use two sources of $`99.99\%`$ purity with different iron impurity concentrations. Since any chemical analysis is impossible on such small samples, we determine the actual iron impurity concentration via the resistance increase at low temperature due to the Kondo effect. Such a method has the advantage that we directly characterise the purity of the samples, which may be quite different from the purity of the sources. The Au/Fe Kondo system is chosen for the following reasons: besides being one of the most extensively studied bulk Kondo system, it has a Kondo temperature sufficiently low to ensure that electron dephasing is only weakly affected by electron-phonon scattering and sufficiently high to be able to perform measurements down to temperatures well below $`T_K`$. Gold as the host metal also avoids problems with surface oxidation: this has been verified by remeasuring the samples after 6 months of being exposed to air, and no measurable change has been observed. The characteristics of the two representative samples presented here are given in table 1. The dimensions of the samples are chosen such that they are quasi-1D with respect to both, the phase-breaking length $`l_\varphi `$ = $`\sqrt{D\tau _\varphi }`$ and the thermal length $`l_T`$ = $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/k_BT}`$, $`D`$ being the diffusion constant, $`D`$ = 1/3 $`v_Fl_e`$.

All the measurements have been carried out using a standard ac resistance bridge with a current down to 2 nA for the lowest temperatures. Extreme care has been taken to filter external radio-frequency noise: $`\pi `$-filters are placed at the top of the cryostat and electrical lines are made of high-loss coaxial cableszorin , leading to an attenuation of 420 dB at 20 GHz. The phase coherence length $`l_\varphi `$ is deduced from magnetoresistance measurements using standard weak localisation theoryhikami , where we fix the spin orbit scattering length to 50 nm, determined at $`T>`$1 K. The coherence time is then obtained from $`\tau _\varphi =l_\varphi ^2/D`$.

The temperature dependence of the phase coherence time as well as the electrical resistivity after subtraction of the electron-electron contribution for the two samples are displayed in figures 1 and 2. For the resistivity measurements, a magnetic field of $`200`$mT is applied to suppress weak localisation. Both samples exhibit a logarithmic increase of the resistivity below $`1`$K, a clear signature of the Kondo effectchandrasekhar\_prl\_94 . The temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity is fitted using Hamann’s lawhamann : from these fits, we extract a Kondo temperature of $`300`$mK and an impurity concentration of $`60`$ppm and $`15`$ppm for sample A and B, respectivelyppm . At very low temperature, the resistance starts to saturate and subsequently decreases: this behaviour is associated with the freezing of the magnetic moments into a spin glass statelaborde\_ssc\_71 . To our knowledge, this is the first time that a spin glass transition is observed in such a diluted mesoscopic Kondo system where weak localisation is accessible.

The phase coherence time depends in a similar way on the temperature as the resistivity. The plateau observed for $`\tau _\varphi `$ in the temperature range between 300 - 800 mK is associated with the electron dephasing due to Kondo impuritiesbergmann\_prl\_87 ; haesendonck\_prl\_87 . At temperatures below $`T_K`$, $`\tau _\varphi `$ increases again: this is expected, as soon as the magnetic impurities become screened by the surrounding conduction electrons and at low enough temperatures standard Fermi-liquid theorynozieres  should again describe the temperature dependence of $`\tau _\varphi `$ . However, at temperatures well below $`T_K`$, $`\tau _\varphi `$ saturates and Fermi-liquid theory clearly does not describe our experimental data. We rule out heating effects for the observed saturation of $`\tau _\varphi `$ at low temperature for the following reasons: i) we have carefully checked the dependence of the phase coherence time as a function of applied current and no heating effect has been observed for currents below $`8`$nA; ii) the downturn of the resistance at the lowest temperatures, associated with the freezing of the magnetic impurities into a spin glass, clearly shows that the electrons are cooled to these low temperatures; iii) the temperature of the resistance maximum is consistent with data from the Au/Fe Kondo systemlaborde\_ssc\_71 .

An explanation of the observed saturation at low temperature of $`\tau _\varphi `$, however presently very controversial, is the possible existence of zero temperature dephasing due to electron-electron interactionszaikin . Following this model, it is interesting to plot $`\gamma _\varphi `$ as a function of temperature on a linear scale as shown in figures 3 and 4: $`\gamma _\varphi `$ varies linearly with temperature over the entire temperature range below $`T_K`$ for both samples. In this respect, it is tempting to compare our data with the formula $`\gamma _\varphi =\gamma _{\varphi _0}+\alpha T`$ of ref.zaikin . From our measurements we find $`\gamma _{\varphi _0}=0.2`$ns-1 and $`\alpha =0.7\times 10^3`$ns-1 mK-1 for sample B, whereas the theoretical values, using the geometrical parameters and the experimental value of $`\gamma _{\varphi _0}`$ of our samples, are $`0.7`$ns-1 and $`1.0\times 10^3`$ns-1 mK-1. The agreement found is reasonable. For sample A, the very high concentration of magnetic impurities, on the other hand, clearly disallows any comparison with such a model: in this case, the main decoherence mechanism is due to magnetic scattering, which is not included in this model. Only the $`\gamma _{\varphi _0}`$ factor is meaningful, and we find an experimental value of $`10`$ns-1 versus a theoretical value of $`7`$ns-1.

It must be stressed that a complete description of our experimental data has to be done in the framework of the Kondo effect. To our knowledge, the problem of phase coherence in this regime at temperatures below $`T_K`$ has not been addressed theoretically. Only the unitary limit, where the magnetic impurities are completely screened, can be described by Nozières Fermi-liquid theorynozieres . Such a limit can only be reached if the impurity concentration is very low; otherwise, a spin-glass transition will occur and the unitary limit is never reached. The crucial question is then: how efficient are these partially screened magnetic impurities for dephasing? To get an insight into this question, let us try to separate the magnetic contribution from the total dephasing rate. The phase breaking rate is given by $`\gamma _\varphi =2\gamma _s+\gamma _{nm}`$, where $`\gamma _s`$ is the spin scattering rate and $`\gamma _{nm}`$ the non-magnetic scattering ratehaesendonck\_prl\_87 . The spin scattering rate can then be obtained by subtracting $`\gamma _\varphi `$ measured in samples containing no magnetic impurities. We assume a temperature dependence for $`\gamma _{nm}`$ given by $`AT^{2/3}+BT^3`$, which is justified from measurements on extremely pure gold wiressaclay . Coefficient A = 0.8 (0.6) ns-1 K-2/3 is calculated using the parameters of sample A (B) and coefficient B = 0.04 (0.04) ns-1 K-3 is obtained by fitting the data at high temperatures.

It should be noted that the exact value of these parameters is not very crucial for the analysis. In figure 5 we plot the spin scattering rate obtained for samples A and B. Both samples exhibit a maximum of $`\gamma _s`$ around $`T_K`$bergmann\_prl\_87 ; haesendonck\_prl\_87 . For sample B, $`\gamma _s`$ decreases with a temperature dependence close to $`T^{1/2}`$ below the maximumbergmann\_prl\_88 ; bergmann\_prb\_89 , whereas for sample A, the maximum is shifted to higher temperatures and the slope of the subsequent decrease is steeper due to the higher impurity concentrationbergmann\_prb\_89 . In neither case the $`T^2`$ dependence of $`\gamma _s`$ of Nozières Fermi-liquid theorynozieres  nor the 1/ln$`{}_{}{}^{2}(T_K`$/$`T`$) dependence for the incomplete screened case is observedglazman .

At lower temperatures the spin scattering rate saturates for both samples and is basically constant down to the lowest temperature. It is well known that RKKY interactions between magnetic impurities lead to the formation of a spin glass. Spin-spin correlations affect drastically the electronic spin scattering rate: freezing of magnetic moments into a spin glass state violates time reversal symmetry, hence leading to a very efficient dephasing mechanism. The change in the temperature dependence of $`\gamma _s`$ can thus be associated with the appearance of spin-spin correlations between the magnetic impurities. This can also be seen from the resistivity curve: the departure from the logarithmic behaviour appears approximately at the same temperature as the change in the temperature dependence of $`\gamma _s`$.

In fact, a constant spin scattering rate is expected for the spin freezing into a Heisenberg spin glassbergmann\_prb\_88 . In this case a reduction of the scattering rate by a factor of $`S`$/($`S`$+1) compared with the free-magnetic moment system is predicted bergmann\_prb\_88  in good agreement with sample B. The ratio obtained from the maximum of $`\gamma _s`$ and its saturation value, however, varies strongly with the magnetic impurity concentration. This strong concentration dependence of both, the reduction of the scattering rate and the saturation value suggests that the interplay between the Kondo effect and RKKY interactions is enhanced in samples with higher impurity concentration.

Our results clearly show that RKKY interactions, associated with the spin glass freezing, lead to a constant spin scattering rate and hence yield a finite phase coherence time at very low temperatures in any system containing even a very small amount of magnetic impurities.

The understanding of the electron dephasing in the temperature range below $`T_K`$ is certainly a challenge for theory, but is probably the key point to interpret properly the experiments carried out on metals as they often contain magnetic impurities on the ppm level at best, with Kondo temperatures in the mK range. Measurements at lower temperature on samples with very low concentration of impurities, well in the unitary limit, would also be of great interest. In this case all magnetic impurities are completely screened, and the standard Fermi-liquid behaviour should be recovered. This would be the key test to discriminate between intrinsic dephasing and dephasing due to Kondo impurities.

In conclusion, we have measured the dephasing rate in quasi-1D gold wires containing iron impurities down to temperatures of $`15`$mK. Below the Kondo temperature, the dephasing rate varies linearly with temperature, clearly in contradiction with standard Fermi-liquid theory. Our measurements suggest that a constant spin scattering rate, associated with the formation of a spin glass, is responsible for the observed saturation of the phase breaking rate at low temperature.

We gratefully acknowledge L. Glazman, A. Zaikin, L.P. Lévy, O. Laborde, J. Souletie, P. Mohanthy, H. Pothier, A. Benoît and F. Hekking for fruitful discussions. Samples have been made at NanoFab, CRTBT-CNRS. Part of this work has been performed at the “Ultra-Low Temperature Facility-University of Bayreuth” within a TMR-project of the European Community (ERBFMGECT-950072). We are indebted to G. Eska, R. König and I. Usherov-Marshak for their assistance.