text:
# A cosmological model in Weyl-Cartan spacetime

## 1 Introduction

We present a scale invariant model for early stages of the universe. Spacetime is described by a Weyl-Cartan geometry. The torsion and nonmetricity become proportional to the Weyl 1-form $`Q`$. Our starting point is the work of Tresguerres , which will be discussed here in more detail. The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we derive the field equations and thereby recover the results found in . In sections 35, we discuss the behavior of the cosmic scale factor $`S(t)`$ and that of the Weyl 1-form $`Q`$, which governs the non-Riemannian features of the model. We provide a list of the explicit form of the surviving curvature pieces for each branch of the solution. Additionally, we investigate the question of whether the solution exhibits singularities. In A we make contact with the formalism used in metric-affine gauge theory of gravity as proposed by Hehl et alin . Finally, in B, we show how the geometric quantities occurring in MAG have to be constrained in case of a Weyl-Cartan spacetime.

## 2 Cosmology in a Weyl-Cartan spacetime

Following the model proposed in , we confine ourselves to a Weyl-Cartan spacetime $`Y_4`$. For a brief introduction into the Weyl-Cartan subcase of MAG see B. We start start with the following Lagrangian ($`R_{\alpha \beta }=W_{\alpha \beta }+Z_{\alpha \beta }=`$ antisymmetric $`+`$ symmetric part of the curvature):

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2\kappa }}R_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\eta _\beta ^\alpha +{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{6}{}}}a_I^{(I)}W_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }_{}^{}R_\beta ^\alpha +bZ_{\alpha \beta }^{}R^{\beta \alpha }`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\text{Einstein-Hilbert}+\text{quadratic rotational curvature}`$
$`+\text{quadratic strain curvature,}`$
with $`\chi ,`$ $`a_{I=\mathrm{1..6}},`$ $`b`$ arbitrary constants and $`\kappa `$ being the weak coupling constant. Here we make use of the irreducible decomposition of the curvature as presented in . The matter Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{mat}}`$is not explicitly given, but will later on be introduced in a phenomenological way. From (2) we calculate the gauge field excitations (cf. A, eqs. (97)-(99)):

$`H_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0,M^{\alpha \beta }=0,`$ (3)
$`H^\alpha _\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2\kappa }}\eta _\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }2{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{6}{}}}a_I^{(I)}W_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}\delta _\beta ^\alpha {}_{}{}^{}R_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}.`$ (4)
The canonical energy-momentum is given by

$`E_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`e_\alpha V+(e_\alpha R_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma })H^\beta {}_{\gamma }{}^{}+(e_\alpha T^\beta )H_\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_\alpha Q_{\beta \gamma })M^{\beta \gamma }`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`e_\alpha V+(e_\alpha R_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma })H^\beta _\gamma .`$ (6)
Because of (3), the hypermomentum vanishes

$$E^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=\vartheta ^\alpha H_\beta g_{\beta \gamma }M^{\alpha \gamma }=0.$$
(7)
The field equations in a Weyl-Cartan spacetime (cf. B) now turn into

$`E_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha ,}`$ (8)
$`dH^\alpha _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (9)
$`g_{\gamma [\alpha }DH_{\beta ]}^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\tau _{\alpha \beta }.`$ (10)
Following , we consider a non-massive medium without spin, i.e. the spin current is assumed111Note that we mark additional assumptions with an ”$`A`$”. to vanish $`\tau _{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{A}{=}0`$ (this can also be interpreted as a spin current which averages out on macroscopic scales). Thus, our medium is equipped only with a dilation current $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and eq. (10) turns into

$$g_{\gamma [\alpha }DH_{\beta ]}^\gamma =0.$$
(11)
In addition to (8), (9) and (11), one has to consider the Noether identities (cf. B). They play the role of consistency conditions, since the matter Lagrangian is not explicitly given. For a vanishing spin current the second identity (cf. eqs. (112), (113)) turns into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\alpha \beta }d\mathrm{\Delta }+\vartheta _{(\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\beta )}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta },`$ (12)
$`\vartheta _{[\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\beta ]}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (13)
Taking eq. (9) into account, (12) turns into

$$\vartheta _{(\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\beta )}=\sigma _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(14)
The first identity (114) becomes

$$D\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \stackrel{\tau _{\alpha \beta }=0,(\text{14})}{=}(e_\alpha T^\beta )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta \frac{1}{2}(e_\alpha Q)\vartheta ^\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta +\frac{1}{4}(e_\alpha R)\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(15)
Thus, we have to solve (8), (9), (11), (13), (14), and (15) in order to obtain a solution of the MAG field equations (93)-(96).

Next we turn to the description of the matter sources. For a vanishing spin current in a Weyl-Cartan spacetime (cf. eq. (109)) the hypermomentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ becomes proportional to its trace part, i.e. reduces to the dilation contribution

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(16)
The trace part (9) of the second field equation yields

$$d\mathrm{\Delta }=0\text{2-form }P:dP=\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(17)
Consequently, the dilation current is conserved and there exists a 2-form $`P`$ being a potential for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We call this form polarization 2-form, the most obvious choice would be

$$P\stackrel{A}{=}H^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}=2b^{}R=2b^{}R^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}.$$
(18)
Of course, this ansatz automatically satisfies (9). Guided by (18) we assume $`P`$ to be of the form

$$P=f(t,r)\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta ^\beta .$$
(19)
So far, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ represent unspecified coframe indices (we fix them when introducing the coframe), and $`f(t,r)`$ denotes an arbitrary function of the time and radial coordinate. After fixing the general form of the hypermomentum current, we have to specify the energy-momentum 3-form which appears in (8), (13), (14), and (15). Equation (13) forces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ to be symmetric. Consequently, we choose

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \stackrel{A}{=}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\eta ^\beta ,$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }=`$diag$`(\mu ,p_r,p_t,p_t)`$ and $`\mu =\mu (t),`$ $`p_r=p_r(t),`$ $`p_t=p_t(t)`$ denote the energy density, and the radial and tangential stresses. Taking (14) into account, one obtains the relation

$`\sigma ^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}\stackrel{(\text{14})}{=}\vartheta ^\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\vartheta ^\gamma \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \beta }\eta ^\beta \right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \beta }\left(\vartheta ^\gamma \eta ^\beta \right)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \beta }\left(\vartheta ^\gamma ^{}\vartheta ^\beta \right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \beta }\left((1)^{11}g^{\gamma \beta }{}_{}{}^{}1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \beta }g^{\gamma \beta }\eta =\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}\eta =(\mu p_r2p_t)\eta .`$
Now we are going to fix the underlying metrical structure. Following the standard cosmological model (cf. ), we take the Robertson-Walker line element as starting point.

$$\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}=dt,\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}=\frac{S(t)}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}dr,\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}=S(t)rd\theta ,\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}=S(t)r\mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi ,$$
(22)
with the line element

$$ds^2\stackrel{A}{=}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}.$$
(23)
As usual, $`S(t)`$ denotes the cosmic scale factor and $`k=1,0,1`$ determines whether the spatial sections are of constant negative, vanishing or positive curvature. Thus, we look for spherically symmetric solutions. This choice fixes the indices in (19) to be $`\alpha =\widehat{2}`$ and $`\beta =\widehat{3}`$. Additionally, we impose another constraint on the so called polarization function $`f(t,r)`$ in (19) by allowing only for functions which depend on the time coordinate, i.e.$`f(r,t)\stackrel{A}{}\frac{\xi (t)}{S^2(t)}`$. Consequently, our ansatz made in (19) turns into

$$P=\frac{\xi (t)}{S^2(t)}\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}\text{,}$$
(24)
where $`\xi (t)`$ represents the new arbitrary polarization function. Equation (24) yields the form of the dilation current $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be222Here we made use of $`^{}`$ $`:=\frac{}{t}`$ and $`\eta ^\alpha :=^{}\vartheta ^\alpha .`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`dP={\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \sqrt{1kr^2}}{S^3r}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\xi }}{S^2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \sqrt{1kr^2}}{S^3r}}\eta ^{\widehat{0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\xi }}{S^2}}\eta ^{\widehat{1}}.`$ (26)
The next thing to come up is a proper ansatz for the torsion 2-form $`T^\alpha `$. We choose the torsion to be proportional to its vector piece$`T^\alpha ^{(2)}T^\alpha `$ which is proportional to the Weyl 1-form

$$T^\alpha \stackrel{A}{=}\frac{1}{2}Q\vartheta ^\alpha .$$
(27)
We are now going to calculate the Weyl 1-form from the trace part of the second field equation (9). Using (25), eq. (9) turns into

$$dH^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }=dP.$$
(28)
From (4) we subsequently deduce

$$dH^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}=2bd^{}R\stackrel{(\mathrm{Weyl}\mathrm{Cartan})}{=}4bd^{}dQ.$$
(29)
Putting the last two equations together we obtain

$`4bd^{}dQ`$ $`=`$ $`dP,`$ (30)
$`^{}dQ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{4b}}dQ={\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{4bS^2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}},`$ (31)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{4bS}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑r\frac{1}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}}\right)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}+\text{exact contribution.}`$ (32)
Neglecting the trivial exact contribution, we obtain the following explicit expressions for $`Q,`$ which depend on the sign of the spatial curvature:

$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4bS(t)}}\text{arcsinh}\left(r\right)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1,`$ (33)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4bS(t)}}r\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=0,`$ (34)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4bS(t)}}\text{arcsin}\left(r\right)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1.`$ (35)
We calculate the field equations resulting from the second Noether identity in (14). We make use of computer algebra and obtain two independent equations, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\mu S^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{16b}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mu p_r2p_t\right){\displaystyle \frac{dS^4}{dt}},`$ (36)
$`p_rp_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{8bS^4}}.`$ (37)
We make use of eq. (37) and rewrite the energy-momentum trace

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}=\mu p_r2p_t=\mu 3p_t\frac{\xi ^2}{8bS^4}.$$
(38)
Let us now inspect the remaining field equations, i.e. the antisymmetric part of the second equation (11), called the spin equation, and the first field equation (8). By use of computer algebra, we investigate eq. (11) and obtain one independent equation, namely

$$\left(a_4+a_6\right)\left(\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{S}S^2+\ddot{S}\dot{S}S2\dot{S}^32k\dot{S}\right)=0.$$
(39)
Thus, for $`a_6a_4`$ and after some algebra, this equation turns into

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\ddot{S}}{S}+\left(\frac{\dot{S}}{S}\right)^2+\frac{k}{S^2}\right)=0.$$
(40)
Hereby we recovered one of the field equations given in  eq. (3.7). Now we draw our attention to the first field equation. Eq. (8) yields three independent equations, namely

$`\chi \left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)\kappa \left(a_4+a_6\right)\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}\right)^2\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}\left(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4}}\right),`$ (41)
$`\chi \left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)+\kappa \left(a_4+a_6\right)\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}\right)^2\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)^2\right)`$
$`=\kappa \left(p_r{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4}}\right),`$ (42)
$`\chi \left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)+\kappa \left(a_4+a_6\right)\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}\right)^2\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)^2\right)`$
$`=\kappa \left(p_t+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4}}\right).`$ (43)
Comparison with the results in  reveals the equivalence of (41), (43) and eqs. (3.8),(3.9) of . We make use of some algebra in order to write (41)-(43) in a more convenient form. By adding (41) and (43) we obtain

$`\chi \left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}\left(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4}}\right)\kappa \left(p_t+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4}}\right)`$
$`2\chi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}\left(\mu 3p_t{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{8bS^4}}\right).`$ (44)
Subtracting (43) from (41) yields

$`2\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+2\kappa \left(a_4+a_6\right)\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}\right)^2\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}\left(\mu +3p_t+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{4bS^4}}\right).`$ (45)
Closer examination of (44) and (40) leads to

$`0`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{40})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}\right)\stackrel{(\text{44})}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\mu 3p_t{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{8bS^4}}\right)`$ (46)
$`\stackrel{(\text{38})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma _\gamma }{dt}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}=\mu p_r2p_t=\text{constant}=:\mathrm{\Xi }.`$ (47)
Thus, the trace of the energy-momentum turns out to be a constant. We will now investigate the consequences of a vanishing energy-momentum trace $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. In order to extract some information from the assumption $`\mathrm{\Xi }\stackrel{A}{=}0,`$ we rewrite eq. (36) by making use of the following definitions:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }:=\mu +\frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4},\stackrel{~}{p}:=\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{\mu }.$$
(48)
We call $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ effective energy and pressure, respectively. After some algebra, we find that (36) is equivalent to

$$d\left(\stackrel{~}{\mu }S^3\right)=\left(\stackrel{~}{p}\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }}{3}\right)dS^3.$$
(49)
This equation has the character of a thermodynamical relation and shows that in case of $`\mathrm{\Xi }=0`$ the constant contribution to the effective pressure on the r.h.s. vanishes. Consequently, the following relations hold in case of $`\mathrm{\Xi }=0`$:

$`\mu `$ $`\stackrel{(\text{47})}{=}`$ $`p_r+2p_t`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{(\text{37})}{}`$ $`p_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{4bS^4}}\right)p_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{8bS^4}}\right).`$ (51)
From the second Noether identity in (36) we gain $`\mu =\mu (t)`$ as a function of the polarization function $`\xi (t)`$ and the scale factor as follows:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\mu S^4+\frac{\xi ^2}{16b}\right)=0\mu =\frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4}+\frac{\mu _0}{S^4},$$
(52)
where $`\mu _0`$ represents an integration constant. The stresses in (51) take the form

$$p_r=\frac{\mu _0}{3S^4}+\frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4},p_t=\frac{\mu _0}{3S^4}\frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4},$$
(53)
i.e. are equal if the polarization function $`\xi (t)`$ vanishes. Once again, we consider the field equations. From eq. (40) follows

$$\frac{\ddot{S}}{S}+\left(\frac{\dot{S}}{S}\right)^2+\frac{k}{S^2}=\text{const}:=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(54)
Note that we are free to choose the emerging constant. Comparison with the classical Friedman equations reveals that this constant plays a role similar to that of the cosmological constant. Thus, we call $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ induced cosmological constant. For vanishing trace the field equation (44) becomes

$$2\chi \left(\frac{\ddot{S}}{S}+\left(\frac{\dot{S}}{S}\right)^2+\frac{k}{S^2}\right)=0,$$
(55)
by insertion of (54) we arrive at

$$\chi \mathrm{\Lambda }=0.$$
(56)
We make use of (52), (53), and (54) and rewrite the remaining field equation (45) as

$$\chi \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}+\frac{4\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\left(a_4+a_6\right)\left(\frac{\ddot{S}}{S}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right)=\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3S^4},$$
(57)
in accordance with the result obtained in  eq. (3.14).

Before we discuss possible solutions of the model under consideration, we will shortly collect all assumptions made up to here in table 1.

The final form of the field equations is given by (54), (56), (57), i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (58)
$`\chi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (59)
$`\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}\left(a_4+a_6\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3S^4}}.`$ (60)
## 3 Vacuum solution

We are now going to solve the system (58)-(60). We start by putting $`\chi =0`$, i.e. the Einstein-Hilbert term in the Lagrangian (2) is assumed to vanish. Since the Einstein-Hilbert term is supposed to describe physics at low energies, we expect the upcoming solution to be valid only in very early stages of the universe, i.e. at high energies. We note that our ansatz fulfills (59) and try to solve (58) for nonvanishing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We can verify that

$$S(t)=Ae^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}+\frac{3k}{4A\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}\text{, with }A=\text{const,}$$
(61)
satisfies eq. (58)333$`[A]=`$ length.. Insertion of (61) into (60) with $`\chi =0`$, yields

$$\frac{4\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\left(a_4+a_6\right)\left(\frac{\ddot{S}}{S}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right)=\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3S^4}\kappa \mu _0\mathrm{\Lambda }^4A^4e^{4\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}=0.$$
(62)
Thus, we have to choose $`\mu _0=0`$ in order to fulfill (60). From eq. (52) we derive the final expressions of the energy and stresses

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{vac}}\mu =\frac{\xi ^2}{16bS^4}^{\mathrm{vac}}\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0\stackrel{(\text{53})}{}^{\mathrm{vac}}p_r=^{\mathrm{vac}}p_t=^{\mathrm{vac}}\mu .$$
(63)
In view of (63), it becomes clear why this branch of our model is the called vacuum solution. Note that in contrast to the standard result, the vacuum energy $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{vac}}\mu `$ is not a constant and proportional to the polarization function $`\xi (t)`$. Finally, the Weyl 1-form reads

$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4bAe^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}\frac{3b}{\mathrm{\Lambda }A}e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}}}\text{arcsinh}(r)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1\text{,}`$ (64)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)r}{4bAe^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=0\text{,}`$ (65)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4bAe^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}+\frac{3b}{\mathrm{\Lambda }A}e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}}}\text{arcsin}(r)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1\text{.}`$ (66)
We observe that the only surviving pieces of the curvature are $`{}_{}{}^{(6)}W_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}Z_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$. Their nonvanishing components read as follows:

$`{}_{}{}^{(6)}W_{}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta ^\beta ,`$ (67)
$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2A^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2e^{2\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}\xi (t)}{b\left(16A^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2e^{4\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}+24kA^2\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t}+9\right)}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{1}\widehat{1}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{2}\widehat{2}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{3}\widehat{3}}\text{.}`$
Note that the results collected in (67) and (68) are valid for $`k=1,0,1`$. The torsion and nonmetricity read

$`{}_{}{}^{(2)}T_{}^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`=0,^{(2)}T^a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q\vartheta ^a,`$ (69)
$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}Q_{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}^{}`$ $`=Q=^{(4)}Q_{\widehat{1}\widehat{1}}`$ $`=^{(4)}Q_{\widehat{2}\widehat{2}}=^{(4)}Q_{\widehat{3}\widehat{3}}.`$ (70)
We continue with the calculation of the curvature invariant $`{}_{}{}^{}\left(R_{\alpha \beta }^{}R^{\alpha \beta }\right)`$ in order to answer the question of whether our solution possesses essential singularities or not. In table 2, we display parameter values and times at which an essential singularity emerges. In the case of $`t_{\mathrm{div}}`$ these are the epochs of the universe at which the invariant diverges. Note that not listed variables and parameters are allowed to take arbitrary values.

In figure 1 we display the function $`t=t_{\mathrm{div}}(A,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the case of $`k=1`$.

As can be read of from there, our solution exhibits no singularity as long as $`A`$ vanishes. In the light of (61) this choice is only allowed if $`k=0`$. Consequently, our solution always exhibits a singularity after a finite time as long as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }]0,\mathrm{}[`$ (negative values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be ruled out since they lead to a complex valued scale factor $`S(t)`$). Reinsertion of the expression for $`t_{\mathrm{div}}(A,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ into the solution for the cosmic scale factor, as stated in (61), reveals that we are dealing with a point singularity at the origin of the universe444Note that this statement holds for $`k=1,1.`$, i.e. $`S(t_{\mathrm{div}})=0`$. Thus, this type of singularity is similar to those known from the Riemannian case. In case of a vanishing $`k`$ there is no singularity since $`b=0`$ leads to a constraint in our Lagrangian and $`A=0`$ corresponds to the unphysical solution $`S(t)0`$.

## 4 Intermediate vacuum solution

At this point we will briefly mention a solution in case of $`\chi =\mathrm{\Lambda }=0k`$. Under this assumption eq. (59) is fulfilled identically. Equation (58) and (60) turn into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3S^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (72)
It is straightforward to check that555$`[F]=`$length2.

$$S(t)=\sqrt{Fkt^2},\text{ with }F=\text{const,}$$
(73)
is a solution of (71). From (72) we recover the same relation between the energy and stresses as in (63). Thus, this solution belongs to the vacuum regime, too. The final form of the Weyl 1-form reads

$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4b\sqrt{F+t^2}}}\text{arcsinh}(r)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1,`$ (74)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4b\sqrt{Ft^2}}}\text{arcsin}(r)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1.`$ (75)
The surviving curvature components are given by

$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{8b\left(Fkt^2\right)}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{1}\widehat{1}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{2}\widehat{2}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{3}\widehat{3}}\text{,}`$ (76)
$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}W_{}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kF}{\left(Fkt^2\right)^2}}\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta ^\beta \text{,}`$ (77)
The parameter values and epochs at which the curvature invariant diverges are collected in table 3.

Again, these times correspond to a point singularity at the origin of the universe, i.e. $`S(t_{\mathrm{div}})=0`$.

## 5 Radiative solution

Let us now investigate the branch $`\chi 0`$, i.e. the induced cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is forced to vanish because of (59). The remaining two field equations (58) and (60) turn into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{S}}{S}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{S^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (78)
$`\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{S}}{S}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3S^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (79)
This set is solved by

$`S(t)`$ $`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3k\chi }}kt^2}`$ $`\text{for }k=1,1,`$ (80)
$`S(t)`$ $`=\sqrt{C+2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3\chi }}}t}`$ $`\text{for }k=0.`$ (81)
Here $`C`$ denotes an arbitrary constant666$`[C]=`$length2.. Again, we derive the effective energy and pressures (48):

$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{\mu }:=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{rad}}\mu ^{\mathrm{vac}}\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{S^4}},`$ (82)
$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{p}_{r}^{}:=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{rad}}p_{r}^{}^{\mathrm{vac}}p_r={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{3S^4}},^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{p}_t:=^{\mathrm{rad}}p_t^{\mathrm{vac}}p_t={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0}{3S^4}}.`$ (83)
Thus, with $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{p}:=^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{p}_r=^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{p}_t`$, the radiative relation between the effective energy and pressure holds:

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{rad}}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{3}.$$
(84)
Finally, the Weyl 1-form reads

$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4b\sqrt{t^2\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3\chi }}}}\text{arcsinh}(r)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1,`$ (85)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)r}{4b\sqrt{C+2\sqrt{\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3\chi }}t}}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=0,`$ (86)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{4b\sqrt{\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3\chi }t^2}}}\text{arcsin}(r)\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1.`$ (87)
Again, we observe that the only surviving pieces of the curvature are $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}W_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}Z_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$, their nonvanishing components are given by:

$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3\chi k\xi (t)}{8b\left(3\chi t^2\kappa \mu _0\right)}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}`$ (88)
$`=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{1}\widehat{1}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{2}\widehat{2}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{3}\widehat{3}}`$ $`\text{for }k=1,1,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{0}\widehat{0}}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi (t)}{8b\left(2\sqrt{\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3\chi }}t+C\right)}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}`$ (89)
$`=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{1}\widehat{1}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{2}\widehat{2}}=^{(4)}Z_{\widehat{3}\widehat{3}}`$ $`\text{for }k=0,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}W_{}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3\chi \kappa \mu _0}{\left(3\chi t^2\mu _0\kappa \right)^2}}\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta ^\beta `$ $`\text{for }k=1,1,`$ (90)
$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}W_{}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mu _0}{12\sqrt{\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3\chi }}\chi Ct+3\chi C^2+4\kappa \mu _0t^2}}\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta ^\beta `$ $`\text{for }k=0.`$ (91)
In table 4 we list the parameter values and epochs at which the curvature invariant diverges.

The situation is the same as in case of the vacuum and intermediate solution, i.e. the times $`t_{\mathrm{div}}`$ correspond to $`S(t_{\mathrm{div}})=0`$, yielding a point singularity at the origin of the universe.

## 6 Conclusion

We were able to recover the results found in . We fixed some dimensional problems and calculated the explicit form of the curvature pieces for all branches of the solution. From the figures 24 we gain insight into the behavior of the Weyl 1-from $`Q`$ which controls the non-Riemannian features of the solution. Since we expect that the non-Riemannian quantities are only present at very early stages of the universe, the explicit form of $`Q`$ (cf. eqs. (64)-(66), (74)-(75), (85)-(87)) restricts the allowed choices for the function $`\xi (t)`$ entering our ansatz in (24). Thus, in case of a suitable choice for $`\xi (t)`$, the solution asymptotically evolves from a Weyl-Cartan into a Riemannian spacetime. We note that some of the previously found branches of the solution can be matched. For this purpose, we investigate the $`k=1`$ branch. The corresponding scale factors are listed in table 5.

From this table it is clear that the intermediate and radiative scale factors can be matched by choosing $`F=\frac{\kappa \mu _0}{3\chi }`$.

In figure 5 we display all three branches in one plot. With the exception of $`t`$, we set all free parameters to the value $`1`$.

Finally, we note that the singularities of the solution are of the same type as in the Riemannian case, i.e. point singularities at the origin of the universe. This result is rather surprising, because most of the known extensions of the cosmological standard model exhibit singularities of extended geometrical shape (cf. , ) or, in some cases, lead to the avoidance of a singularity (cf. ). In future work it might be interesting to incorporate anisotropic and inhomogeneous metrical structures into our model.

## Appendix A MAG in general

In MAG we have the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, the coframe $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$, and the connection 1-form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$ (with values in the Lie algebra of the four-dimensional linear group $`GL(4,R)`$) as new independent field variables. Here $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ denote (anholonomic) frame indices. Spacetime is described by a metric-affine geometry with the gravitational field strengths nonmetricity $`Q_{\alpha \beta }:=Dg_{\alpha \beta }`$, torsion $`T^\alpha :=D\vartheta ^\alpha `$, and curvature $`R_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }:=d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ^\beta `$. A Lagrangian formalism for a matter field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ minimally coupled to the gravitational potentials $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$ has been set up in . An alternative interpretation of the metric as a Goldstone field, no more playing the role of a fundamental gravitational potential, has been proposed by Mielke and one of the authors in  in the context of nonlinear realizations of spacetime groups. The dynamics of an ordinary MAG theory is specified by a total Lagrangian

$$L=V_{\mathrm{MAG}}(g_{\alpha \beta },\vartheta ^\alpha ,Q_{\alpha \beta },T^\alpha ,R_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta })+L_{\mathrm{mat}}(g_{\alpha \beta },\vartheta ^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Psi },D\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(92)
The variation of the action with respect to the independent gauge potentials leads to the field equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{mat}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (93)
$`DM^{\alpha \beta }m^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^{\alpha \beta },`$ (94)
$`DH_\alpha E_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha ,}`$ (95)
$`DH^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}E^\alpha _\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}.`$ (96)
Equation (95) is the generalized Einstein equation with the energy-momentum 3-form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ as its source, whereas (94) and (96) are additional field equations which take into account other aspects of matter, such as spin, shear and dilation currents, represented by the hypermomentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha _\beta `$. We made use of the definitions of the gauge field excitations,

$$H_\alpha :=\frac{V_{\mathrm{MAG}}}{T^\alpha },H^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}:=\frac{V_{\mathrm{MAG}}}{R_\alpha ^\beta },M^{\alpha \beta }:=2\frac{V_{\mathrm{MAG}}}{Q_{\alpha \beta }},$$
(97)
of the canonical energy-momentum, the metric stress-energy and the hypermomentum current of the gauge fields,

$$E_\alpha :=\frac{V_{\mathrm{MAG}}}{\vartheta ^\alpha },m^{\alpha \beta }:=2\frac{V_{\mathrm{MAG}}}{g_{\alpha \beta }},E^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}:=\vartheta ^\alpha H_\beta g_{\beta \gamma }M^{\alpha \gamma },$$
(98)
and of the canonical energy-momentum, the metric stress-energy and the hypermomentum currents of the matter fields,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha :=\frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{mat}}}{\delta \vartheta ^\alpha },\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }:=2\frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{mat}}}{\delta g_{\alpha \beta }},\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}:=\frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{mat}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta }.$$
(99)
Provided the matter equations (93) are fulfilled, the following Noether identities hold:

$`D\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(e_\alpha T^\beta )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_\alpha Q_{\beta \gamma })\sigma ^{\beta \gamma }+(e_\alpha R_\beta {}_{}{}^{\gamma })\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta _\gamma ,`$ (100)
$`D\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha _\beta `$ $`=`$ $`g_{\beta \gamma }\sigma ^{\alpha \gamma }\vartheta ^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta .`$ (101)
They show that the field equation (94) is redundant, thus we only need to take into account (95) and (96).

As suggested in , the most general parity conserving quadratic Lagrangian expressed in terms of the irreducible pieces of the nonmetricity $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, torsion $`T^\alpha `$, and curvature $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ reads

$`V_{\mathrm{MAG}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}[`$ $`a_0R^{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\alpha \beta }2\lambda \eta +T^\alpha ^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{3}{}}}a_I^{(I)}T_\alpha \right)`$
$`+Q_{\alpha \beta }^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{4}{}}}b_I^{(I)}Q^{\alpha \beta }\right)`$
$`+b_5\left({}_{}{}^{(3)}Q_{\alpha \gamma }^{}\vartheta ^\alpha \right)^{}\left({}_{}{}^{(4)}Q_{}^{\beta \gamma }\vartheta _\beta \right)`$
$`+2\left({\displaystyle \underset{I=2}{\overset{4}{}}}c_I^{(I)}Q_{\alpha \beta }\right)\vartheta ^\alpha ^{}T^\beta ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\rho }}R^{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`[{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{6}{}}}w_I^{(I)}W_{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{5}{}}}z_I^{(I)}Z_{\alpha \beta }+w_7\vartheta _\alpha (e_\gamma ^{(5)}W^\gamma {}_{\beta }{}^{})`$ (102)
$`+z_6\vartheta _\gamma (e_\alpha ^{(2)}Z^\gamma {}_{\beta }{}^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{I=7}{\overset{9}{}}}z_I\vartheta _\alpha (e_\gamma ^{(I4)}Z^\gamma {}_{\beta }{}^{})].`$
The constants entering (102) are the cosmological constant $`\lambda `$, the weak and strong coupling constant $`\kappa `$ and $`\rho `$777$`[\lambda ]=`$length-2, $`[\kappa ]=`$length2, $`[\rho ]=[\mathrm{}]=[c]=1.`$, and the 28 dimensionless parameters

$$a_0,\mathrm{},a_3,b_1,\mathrm{},b_5,c_2,\mathrm{},c_4,w_1,\mathrm{},w_7,z_1,\mathrm{},z_9.$$
(103)
This Lagrangian and the presently known exact solutions in MAG have been reviewed in . We note that this Lagrangian incorporates the one used in section 2 eq. (2), as can be seen easily by making the following choice for the constants in (102):

$$\lambda ,a_1,\mathrm{},a_3,b_1,\mathrm{},b_5,c_2,\mathrm{},c_4,w_7,z_1,\mathrm{},z_3,z_5,\mathrm{},z_9=0.$$
(104)
In order to obtain exactly the form of (2), one has to perform the additional substitutions:

$$a_0\chi ,w_1,\mathrm{},w_62\rho a_1,\mathrm{},2\rho a_6,z_42\rho b.$$
(105)
## Appendix B Weyl-Cartan spacetime

The Weyl-Cartan spacetime ($`Y_n`$) is a special case of the general metric-affine geometry in which the tracefree part $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the nonmetricity $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ vanishes. Thus, the whole nonmetricity is proportional to its trace part, i.e. the Weyl 1-form $`Q:=\frac{1}{4}Q^\alpha _\alpha `$,

$$Q_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }Q=\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }Q^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}.$$
(106)
Therefore the general MAG connection reduces to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dg_{\alpha \beta }+(e_{[\alpha }dg_{\beta ]\gamma })\vartheta ^\gamma +e_{[\alpha }C_{\beta ]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_\alpha e_\beta C_\gamma )\vartheta ^\gamma `$ (107)
$`e_{[\alpha }T_{\beta ]}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_\alpha e_\beta T_\gamma )\vartheta ^\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\alpha \beta }Q+(e_{[\alpha }Q)\vartheta _{\beta ]}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\{\}}e_{[\alpha }T_{\beta ]}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_\alpha e_\beta T_\gamma )\vartheta ^\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\alpha \beta }Q+(e_{[\alpha }Q)\vartheta _{\beta ]}.`$ (108)
Thus, it not longer includes a symmetric tracefree part. Now let us recall the definition of the material hypermomentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ given in (99). Due to the absence of a symmetric tracefree piece in (108), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ decomposes as follows

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ antisymmetric piece + trace piece (109)
$`=`$ $`\tau _{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }=\tau _{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }^\gamma _\gamma `$
$`=`$ spin current + dilation current.
According to (109) the second MAG field equation (96) decomposes into

$`dH^\alpha {}_{\alpha }{}^{}E^\alpha _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (110)
$`g_{\gamma [\alpha }DH_{\beta ]}^\gamma E_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _{\alpha \beta },`$ (111)
while the first field equation is still given by (95). Additionally, we can decompose the second Noether identity (101) into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\alpha \beta }d\mathrm{\Delta }+\vartheta _{(\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\beta )}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta },`$ (112)
$`D\tau _{\alpha \beta }+Q\tau _{\alpha \beta }+\vartheta _{[\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\beta ]}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (113)
Thus, the first Noether identity (100) with inserted Weyl 1-form and hypermomentum reads

$$D\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =(e_\alpha T^\beta )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta \frac{1}{2}(e_\alpha Q)\sigma ^\beta {}_{\beta }{}^{}+(e_\alpha R_{[\beta \gamma ]})\tau ^{\beta \gamma }+\frac{1}{4}(e_\alpha R)\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(114)
Finally, we note that in a $`Y_n`$ spacetime the symmetric part of the curvature $`R_{(\alpha \beta )}=Z_{\alpha \beta }`$, i.e. the strain curvature, reduces to the trace part

$$Z_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }R=\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }R^\gamma {}_{\gamma }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }dQ.$$
(115)
## Appendix C Units

In this work we made use of natural units, i.e. $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ (cf. table 6).

Additionally, we have to be careful with the coupling constants and the coordinates within the coframe. In order to keep things as clear as possible, we provide a list of the quantities emerging in section 2 in table 7.

Note that $`[d]=1`$ and $`[^{}]=`$ lengthn-2p, where $`n=`$ dimension of the spacetime, $`p=`$ degree of the differential form on which  acts.

The authors are grateful to Prof. F.W. Hehl, and the members of the gravity group at the University of Cologne for their support.


format: text

text:
# Differential Cross Sections Measurement for the 𝑝𝑝→𝑑𝜋⁺ Reaction at 850 MeV/c

## I Introduction

Although the reaction $`ppd\pi ^+`$ has been intensively studied, some open problems remain. These are mainly connected to the importance of different partial wave amplitudes. For small pion energies only three complex amplitudes are believed to contribute to the physical observables: $`a_0,a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. Here the index denotes the angular momentum in the proton–proton channel. Close to threshold, the cross section is given by only one amplitude $`a_1`$ corresponding to an s-wave in the final channel. For slightly larger energies, the p-wave amplitudes $`a_0`$ and $`a_2`$ show up. Because $`|a_2|`$ is much larger than $`|a_0|`$, the latter amplitude is often ignored Bugg . The d-wave amplitudes are even smaller. In the simplest experiments, three observables can be measured, the total cross section, the anisotropy and the asymmetry of the reaction products. The usual method to deduce the three complex amplitudes is then to make use of the Watson theorem Wat54 . However, this procedure often yields negative values for $`|a_0|`$ Hei99 . Because of its smallness, the magnitude of $`a_0`$ cannot be extracted from the total cross section. It enters the other two quantities via interference with other amplitudes. Especially in the anisotropy, there is an interference between the two p-waves. Thus the measurement of this quantity might yield an estimate of $`a_0`$.

The energy dependence of the anisotropy, which will be defined later, is a puzzle. Data published before 1996 like those of Ref. Ritchie  lie on but often below the predictions of the SP96 phase shift analysis carried out by the Virginia group SAID . Near threshold data, appeared first in 1996 Dro98 ; Hei96  and are in agreement with the SP96 solution. The newest data are from a measurement of the inverse reaction Pasyuk . They are even below the Ritchie et al. data Ritchie , thus indicating the negligible effect of $`a_0`$ even in the interference term (see section III). This is in contrast to SAID calculations as well as to extrapolation of the new near threshold results. Furthermore, the new data of Ref. Pasyuk  show a much larger scattering than the threshold data, although the latter are from two different experiments. It is worth mentioning that in the measurement of the anisotropy, the luminosity cancels out. Large fluctuations in this quantity may thus point to systematic errors other than target thickness and beam intensity. We, therefore, investigate the situation by a measurement in the range of these data not so close to threshold.

In the present experiment, the differential cross section for the $`ppd\pi ^+`$ reaction was measured at a beam momentum of 850 MeV/c, which corresponds to a pion centre of mass momentum divided by the pion rest mass of $`\eta =0.51`$. This value is within the range of the Pasyuk et al. data Pasyuk  and will thus allow to proof the importance of $`pp`$-wave interference in the anisotropy as already mentioned.

## II Experimental Procedure

The measurement of the reaction $`ppd\pi ^+`$ was performed using a detector that combines large momentum and geometrical acceptance for heavy recoiling reaction products. A proton beam with a momentum of 850 MeV/c was extracted from the COSY accelerator and focused onto a target cell containing liquid hydrogen. It had a diameter of 6 mm and a thickness of $`6.4\pm 0.3`$ mm Jae94  with windows of 1.5 $`\mu `$m Mylar. The excellent ratio of hydrogen to heavier nuclei in the window material reduced empty target events to a negligible level. The beam spot had dimensions of less than 1 mm and divergences of better than 4 mrad. Beam halo events were suppressed using a plastic scintillator as a veto counter with a 4 mm diameter inner hole in front of the target. The detector system is the “Germanium Wall”, which is part of the GEM-detector at COSY in Jülich Bet99  and the remodelled magnetic spectrograph Big Karl Dro98 . Here we give only some additional details specific for this experiment.

The magnetic spectrograph was set to zero degrees in the laboratory system. It was used to measure the low energy branch of deuterons close to the primary beam. The germanium wall consists of three high purity germanium detectors with radial symmetry with respect to the beam axis. The first detector (called Quirl-detector) measures the position and the energy loss of the penetrating particles. The active area of the diode is divided on both sides into 200 segments by 200 grooves. Each groove is shaped as an Archimedes’ spiral covering an angular range of $`2\pi `$. They are mainly used for measuring the energy loss of the penetrating particles or the total kinetic energy of stopped particles, respectively. The next detectors are divided into 32 wedges to reduce the counting rate per division leading to a higher maximum total counting rate of the whole detector.

Fig. 1 shows the response of the germanium wall for reaction particles. Clearly distinguished are two bands corresponding to protons from the $`pppp\pi ^0`$ and deuterons from the $`ppd\pi ^+`$ reactions.

The quantities measured with the germanium wall are energy, emission vertex and particle type. They were converted to a four-momentum vector. These measurements and the knowledge of the four momenta in the initial state yield the missing mass of the unobserved pion by applying conservation of momentum, energy, charge and baryon number.

The germanium detectors have holes in their centres. The primary beam passes through these holes and is then led via an exit in a side yoke of the first dipole magnet of the magnetic spectrograph to a well shielded beam dump. Recoiling deuterons at emission angles inside this hole, i. e. close to zero degree, were detected by the magnetic spectrograph. Details of such measurements are given in Ref. Dro98 .

The reaction deuterons were selected in the off-line analysis by applying gates to the kinematical loci in Fig. 1. The efficiency of the analysis procedures were studied by Monte Carlo calculations Gar99 . Finally, the data were corrected for reduced efficiencies due to nuclear absorption in the detector material Mac99 . The correction factors vary from 17% to 22% for the present energy interval. The present setup has full acceptance for the recoiling deuterons, except for a small area close to the beam exit hole. For particles not stopped in the germanium wall, only energy loss measurements are made. Because the angular distribution of the reaction products must be symmetric to 90 degree in the centre of mass system, it is sufficient to measure only one half of the distribution. The deuterons emitted backward in the centre of mass system are all stopped in the germanium wall. We restrict ourselves to this part of the distribution in order to not introduce ambiguities when unfolding the backbending part in Fig. 1.

Each of the measurements, i. e. emission angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and energy of the recoiling deuteron, is sufficient to extract the angular distribution. Because of this overconstraint, one can clearly distinguish between reaction and background events.

This is shown in Fig. 2. The missing mass of the unobserved $`\pi ^+`$ is shown as deduced in the off line analysis. The distribution has a resolution of $`5.9MeV/c^2`$. The logarithmic scale was chosen to make the small background visible. The background, shown by a dashed curve in Figure 2, was measured with an empty target, normalized to integrated beam intensity and then subtracted.

Finally, the counts were converted to cross sections by normalizing to the target thickness and number of beam protons. The latter were measured with calibrated luminosity monitor counters. In the calibration procedure the direct beam intensity and the corresponding number of scattered particles are compared. The former was measured with the trigger hodoscope in the focal plane of the magnet spectrograph. This number is of course much larger and lead to dead time in the hodoscope. The beam intensity was then reduced by debunching the beam between the ion source and the cyclotron injector. For sufficiently small beam intensity the relation between monitors and hodoscope is linear. The counting rate in the monitors was in the the production runs small enough to have dead time effects on a negligible level. This procedure yields a systematic uncertainty of $`5\%`$ for the beam intensity. This yields together with the target thickness uncertainty of also $`5\%`$ a maximal total systematical error of $`10\%`$ for the overall normalization of the differential cross section when both errors are added linearly.

## III Results

The measured angular distribution in the centre of mass system are shown in Fig. 3.

The point near $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1`$ was measured with the magnetic spectrograph. It has larger statistical error than all other points which were measured with the germanium wall. This is due to its small acceptance. The data show a very strong anisotropy when compared to those close to the threshold Dro98 ; Hei96 . This is an indication of the p-wave strength and thus of the importance of the intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-p system. The angular distribution was fitted by a series of Legendre polynomials $`P_{2L}[\mathrm{cos}(\theta )]`$

$$4\pi \frac{d\sigma (\theta )}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=A_0+A_2P_2[\mathrm{cos}(\theta )]+A_4P_4[\mathrm{cos}(\theta )].$$
(1)
The fitted parameters $`A_{2L}`$ are connected with amplitudes $`a_i`$

$$A_0=\sigma =\frac{1}{4}[|a_0|^2+|a_1|^2+|a_2|^2+C(|d|^2)]$$
(2)
where $`C(|d|^2)`$ represents all d-wave contributions,

$`A_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left|a_2\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{14}}\left|a_6\right|^2\sqrt{1/2}\mathrm{}\left(a_0a_2^{}\right)`$ (3)
$`+\sqrt{1/8}\mathrm{}\left(a_1a_3^{}\right)+\sqrt{5/8}\mathrm{}\left(a_1a_4^{}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{5/7}\mathrm{}\left(a_1a_5^{}\right)+\sqrt{1/2}\mathrm{}\left(a_1a_6^{}\right)`$
$`+D\left(\left|d\right|^2\right)+E\left(dd\right)`$
with $`D(|d|^2)`$ denoting other d-wave contributions and $`E(dd)`$ terms with interferences between two d-waves. $`A_4`$ is given by

$`A_4=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{49}}|a_5|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{28}}|a_6|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{14}}\mathrm{}(a_3a_6^{})`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{49}}\sqrt{14}\mathrm{}(a_4a_5^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{14}}\sqrt{5}\mathrm{}(a_4a_6^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{14}}}\mathrm{}(a_5a_6^{}).`$
The amplitude $`a_1`$ is the s-wave in the pion-deuteron channel, $`a_0`$ and $`a_2`$ denote p-waves and $`a_3`$ to $`a_6`$ denote d-waves. In Eqs. 2 to 4 the notation of Mandl and Regge Man55  is used. The total cross section can near threshold be written as

$$\sigma =\alpha _0\eta +\alpha _1\eta ^3.$$
(5)
The first term corresponds to the s-wave amplitude $`a_1`$ and the second to the two p-wave amplitudes $`a_0`$ and $`a_2`$.

Fits of Eq. 1 up to second and to fourth order were performed. Although the $`\chi ^2`$-values of both fits are similar, the large uncertainties in $`A_4`$ and in $`A_2`$ favour the second-order fit. Application of F-statistics indicates the same conclusion. The results are independent whether the point at $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=1`$ is excluded or not. The negative sign of $`A_4`$ is in agreement with a theoretical prediction Niskanen  as well as with phase-shift analyses Bugg ; SAID . On the other hand, corresponding fits to data in this energy range Ritchie  yield positive values. From phase-shift analysis it is known that all terms in d-waves are small. Only $`\mathrm{}(a_6)`$ is of some size. If we neglect all other terms one gets

$`A_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{28}}\left\{|a_6|^2+\mathrm{}\left[18(a_3a_6^{})+10\sqrt{5}(a_4a_6^{})\right]\right\}.`$ (6)
The first term is positive and the second negative. This yields a cancelation making the resulting value even smaller in agreement with the present result. For the sake of simplicity we rely on the second order fit. This choice may introduce a systematical error. However, the change in the quantity of interest, i. e. the ratio $`A_2/A_0`$ is small; both results agree with each other within error bars. The second order fit is also shown in Fig. 3 as solid curve.

Since $`A_0`$ is the total cross section we have from the second order fit a value $`\sigma =230.1\pm 3.6(stat)\pm 23.0(sys)\mu b`$ with the systematical uncertainty discussed above. The efficiency correction is angle dependent, varying from 17% to 22% in the presently measured range. If a 10% precision of this correction is assumed, it adds 1.5% to the uncertainty in the total cross section only. This uncertainty is added in quadrature to the fit error and is contained in the statistical uncertainty. We compare the present angular distribution with a prediction from the SAID phase shift analysis SAID , shown as dotted curve in Fig. 3. The prediction is always $`10\%`$ below the data. This is just the sum of all systematic errors of the present experiment. Whether this is the reason for the disagreement or not will be discussed below. From the result in the Table an anisotropy $`A_2/A_0=0.856\pm 0.014(fit)\pm 0.0045(effic.corr.)`$ is obtained. This is close to the SAID prediction of $`0.89`$ indicating the good reproduction of the shape of differential cross sections.

This ratio is compared in Fig. 4 with previous results Aebischer ; Axen ; Predom . The point joins the data in the upper part of the band formed by the experiments and is in agreement with the extrapolation of the low energy results assuming a dependence $`A_2\eta ^3`$. However, it is $`15\%`$ larger than the Pasyuk et al. result. This seems to be a large discrepancy since only the shape of the angular distributions are compared. Also shown in Fig. 4 is the prediction from fit E in Ref. Mac98  under the assumption of no interference at all: $`A_2/A_0=\alpha _1\eta ^3/(\alpha _0\eta +\alpha _1\eta ^3)`$ (compare Eq. 5).

It should be mentioned that the quality of fits for the total cross sections for the phase shift analysis and fit E from Ref. Mac98 is similar, except for the near threshold region. However, the corresponding data are in the fit E but not in the SAID analysis. We have also inspected the results of the phase shift analysis solution C500. It only differs very slightly in the range $`\eta <0.35`$ from the solution SP96 and gives almost identical results for larger $`\eta `$-values. It is worth mentioning that in Eq. 3, according to SAID, the term $`\mathrm{}(a_0a_2^{})`$ is several orders of magnitude larger than all the others, except the $`|a_2|^2`$ term.

## IV Discussion

An almost complete angular distribution for the reaction $`ppd\pi ^+`$ at a beam momentum of 850 MeV/c was measured. This corresponds to a pion centre of mass momentum $`\eta =p_\pi /m_\pi =0.51`$. The measurement was performed with a solid state detector with axial symmetry for larger angles and a magnetic spectrograph for emission angles close to the primary beam. The angular distribution shows a large anisotropy when compared to data closer to the threshold. This is an indication that p-wave emission is the dominant reaction mechanism. Because d-wave amplitudes are much smaller than the s- and p-wave amplitudes one cannot extract their strength from the total cross section. The angular distribution is more sensitive to these waves. The present data give almost no evidence for a d-wave contribution to the angular distribution. Precise measurements at somewhat higher energies are desirable to investigate the importance of d-waves esp. the sign of the Legendre coefficient $`A_4`$ in the range below the resonance. The ratio $`A_2/A_0`$ does not demand d-waves. However, they contribute to the scattering asymmetry via interferences with p-waves having larger amplitudes. The weakness of d-wave amplitudes was also recently found in the measurement of spin transfer coefficients even at 400 MeV beam energy Prz99 .

The present measurement confirms a larger ratio $`A_2/A_0`$ as extracted from recent measurements at lower beam momenta and is in good agreement with the phase shift analysis of the Virginia group. It disagrees with the results of Ref. Pasyuk . However, these data show a large scatter which is surprising, since the comparison is made on a relative base. It has its origin mainly in large fluctuations of the $`A_2`$ values. The agreement between the new data and the SP96 solution, which does not include these data, is much better than the earlier phase shift analysis Bugg . The present total cross section $`\sigma =A_0`$ and the second Legendre coefficient $`A_2`$ are larger than the SP96 solution but the ratio $`A_2/A_0`$ is in excellent agreement with this solution. A non negligible value for $`a_0`$, as is applied in the SP96 solution, is confirmed by the present measurement. One needs more observables than the presently measured ones to deduce the amplitudes. Since the present result is in agreement with the SP96 solution we will rely on this solution. It yields for the ratio $`|a_0|/|a_2|`$ a value of 0.099 close to threshold and 0.096 for the present beam momentum. This can be compared to the result obtained by Ref. Hei96 . From cross section and polarisation measurements, which, together with the above cited Watson theorem, a ratio $`|a_0|/|a_2|=(9\pm 36)10^3`$ was extracted , a value which is compatible with zero.

## V Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the COSY operation crew for their efforts making a good beam. Support by BMBF Germany (06 MS 568 I TP4), Internationales Büro des BMBF (X081.24 and 211.6), SCSR Poland (2P302 025 and 2P03B 88 08), and COSY Jülich is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# On propagation of photon in a medium

## 1  Introduction

It is well known that polarized photons propagating in an optically active medium change initial polarization state . It has important meaning in a lot of fields of physics. We have pointed to some existing problems:

a) propagation effects in a magnetosphere of pulsars ;

b) results of the circular polarization measurements of extragalactic radio sources  and  (in our Galaxy);

c) cosmic birefringence (see  and literature therein).

d) problems of propagation x-rays  and high energy $`\gamma `$-quanta  in single crystals and creation of the polarimeters for hard photon beams;

e)experimental observation of the birefringence in an electromagnetic vacuum ;

f)investigations of propagation of $`\gamma `$-quanta in laser waves  with the aim of polarization control on future $`\gamma \gamma `$-colliders.

Besides, the possibility of propagation polarization phenomena of the radiation emitted from quark-gluon plasma must not be ruled out.

Various phenomena (birefringence, Faraday rotation and etc.) of the visible light are well known and described in literature . In  the detailed consideration of these processes was carry out in anisotropic and gyrotropic media. However, the description of propagation was realized on a basis of the polarization states, whereas representation in terms of density matrices is more adequate in some cases. A parallel with well known ones, the new cases of propagation of photons were investigated in recent papers . In this connection the problem of classification of these cases and its completeness arises.

On the other hand, the description of the optical properties of a medium with the help of the permittivity tensor is the universal and traditional method. This method may be used in wide energy ranges of propagating photons. The proof of validity of the method for $`\gamma `$-quanta and samples of its using one can find in . Using of permittivity tensor presumes the linear response of media on perturbations. It is a very good assumption for many cases (however, see ).

The aims of this paper are: firstly, the derivation of equations, describing all the cases of propagation of photons in media, whose optical properties may be described with the help of the permittivity tensor and, secondly, creation on a basis of these equations classification of the various cases of photon propagation. Our consideration is based on some suggestions such as smallness of the permittivity tensor components in compare to unit and straight line motion of the photons. It is not the most general case, of course, but the most interesting one for practical applications.

It should be noted, that the problems of propagation of the photon beam were considered in some papers . For example, in  the equations of the general type for propagation process were obtained. However, it seems that their using in specific applications is difficulty, because the physical nature of the parameters in the equations is unknown.

## 2 Equations

We write the equations of the electromagnetic field in a medium in the following form :

$`rot𝐁={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐃}{t}},div𝐃=0,`$
$`rot𝐄={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}},div𝐁=0,`$ (1)
where $`𝐄`$ is the intensity of electric field and $`𝐃`$ and $`𝐁`$ are the electric and magnetic induction vectors, t is the time, c is the speed of light. All the properties of the medium are reflected in the relation between $`𝐁,𝐄`$ and $`𝐃`$. Eqs.(1) would suffice to describe the propagation of photons in a medium and such a property as the intensity of magnetic field is not needed . We represent the relation between $`𝐃`$ and $`𝐄`$ in the form

$$D_i(\omega )=\epsilon _{ij}E_j(\omega ),(i,j=1,2,3),$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon _{ij}=\epsilon _{ij}^{}+i\epsilon _{ij}^{\prime \prime }`$ is the complex permittivity tensor and $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the photon beam propagating in the medium.

We consider here only monochromatic photon beam, which propagates in defined direction. In this case conveniently to use in calculations the inverse $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ of the tensor $`\epsilon _{ij}`$. In Cartesian coordinate system with one axis oriented along the direction of photon motion this tensor can be represented as two-dimensial tensor $`(\alpha =1,2,\beta =1,2)`$ because of perpendicularity of $`𝐃`$ to the photon wave vector. The obtained below equations are written in this coordinate system.

In our consideration we assume that the photon beam move along straight line. It means that in transverse directions (relative to motion of the beam) a medium is uniform (). In the most of practical cases it is true with very high accuracy.

Knowing the tensor $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$, one can find the refractive indices of propagating photons :

$$\stackrel{~}{n}^2=(\eta _{11}+\eta _{22})/2\pm \sqrt{(\eta _{11}\eta _{22})^2/4+\eta _{12}\eta _{21}},$$
(3)
Thus, in the general case the photon beam propagates through the medium as the superposition of two electromagnetic waves with different refractive indices. In the general case the refractive indices are complex values.

One can describe the polarization state either (of the two) wave by the use of the Stokes parameters $`X_i,Y_i(i=13)`$ ($`X_i`$-values correspond to one wave and $`Y_i`$ to another). These parameters are determined by the following relations

$`X_1,Y_1={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa +\kappa ^{}}{1+\kappa \kappa ^{}}},`$ (4)
$`X_2,Y_2={\displaystyle \frac{i(\kappa \kappa ^{})}{1+\kappa \kappa ^{}}},`$ (5)
$`X_3,Y_3={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \kappa ^{}1}{1+\kappa \kappa ^{}}}.`$ (6)
where $`\kappa `$ is the ratio of components of electric induction vector $`𝐃(D_1,D_2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ :

$$\frac{D_1}{D_2}=\kappa =\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}^2\eta _{22}}{\eta _{21}}=\frac{|D_1|}{|D_2|}e^{i\delta },$$
(7)
where $`\kappa `$ calculated with refractive index $`\stackrel{~}{n_1},(\stackrel{~}{n_2})`$ corresponds to $`X_i(Y_i)`$-parameters (denote the $`\kappa `$-values correspondingly as $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$) and $`\delta `$ is the phase shift between $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$.

This ratio $`\kappa `$ can be reduced to zero or to the form $`\kappa =i\rho `$ (since $`|D_1||D_2|\mathrm{sin}\delta =b_1b_2`$, where $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ are the semiaxes of the ellipse and $`|\rho |=b_1/b_2`$ ) by the rotation of the coordinate system around the photon wave vector (the third axis is constantly aligned with the wave vector). The first case corresponds to the propagation of a linearly polarized wave and the second case corresponds to an elliptically polarized wave; in addition, $`\rho >0(\rho <0)`$ corresponds to left (right) - hand polarization of $`\gamma `$-quanta.

From our consideration follows the important conclusion that these two waves (named as electromagnetic normal waves ) with determined refractive indices and polarization states are the eigenfunctions of problem and any monochromatic electromagnetic wave propagating in the medium in defined direction is superposition of these two waves.

One can obtain the following relations:

$$\kappa _1\kappa _2=\frac{\eta _{12}}{\eta _{21}},$$
(8)
In the case of symmetric $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor, the product $`\kappa _1\kappa _2=1`$ and $`X_1=Y_1,X_2=Y_2,X_3=Y_3`$. Another important case take a place when $`\eta _{12}+\eta _{21}=0`$ (but $`\eta _{12}0`$) and then $`\kappa _1\kappa _2=1`$, $`X_1=Y_1,X_2=Y_2,X_3=Y_3`$. However, in general the absolute values of circular and linear polarizations for both the normal waves are not equal in between (i.e. $`|X_2||Y_2|,X_1^2+X_3^2Y_1^2+Y_3^2`$).

Now we consider the case of photon propagation in the medium, whose optical properties described by the tensor $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ at condition $`\eta _{12}+\eta _{21}=0`$, ($`\eta _{12}0`$). This case was investigated in . The variations of intensity and Stokes parameters one can write in the following form:

$`J_\gamma (x)=J_1(x)+J_2(x)+2J_3(x),`$ (9)
$`\xi _1(x)=(X_1J_1(x)+Y_1J_2(x)+p_1J_3(x))/J_\gamma (x),`$ (10)
$`\xi _2(x)=(X_2J_1(x)+Y_2J_2(x)+p_2J_4(x))/J_\gamma (x),`$ (11)
$`\xi _3(x)=(X_3J_1(x)+Y_3J_2(x)+p_3J_4(x))/J_\gamma (x),`$ (12)
$`p_1={\displaystyle \frac{2}{X_1}},p_2={\displaystyle \frac{2X_3}{X_1}},p_3={\displaystyle \frac{2X_2}{X_1}},`$ (13)
where $`J_\gamma ,\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3`$ are the intensity and Stokes parameters of the photon beam on the distance equal to x. The partial intensities $`J_i(x),(i=14)`$ have the following form:

$`J_1(x)=J_1(0)\mathrm{exp}(2Im(\stackrel{~}{n}_1)\omega x/c),`$ (14)
$`J_2(x)=J_2(0)\mathrm{exp}(2Im(\stackrel{~}{n}_2)\omega x/c),`$ (15)
$`J_3(x)=\mathrm{exp}(Im(\stackrel{~}{n}_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2)\omega x/c)\{J_3(0)\mathrm{cos}(Re(\stackrel{~}{n}_1\stackrel{~}{n}_2)\omega x/c)`$ (16)
$`J_4(0)\mathrm{sin}(Re(\stackrel{~}{n}_1\stackrel{~}{n}_2)\omega x/c)\},`$
$`J_4(x)=\mathrm{exp}(Im(\stackrel{~}{n}_1+\stackrel{~}{n}_2)\omega x/c)\{J_3(0)\mathrm{sin}(Re(\stackrel{~}{n}_1\stackrel{~}{n}_2)\omega x/c)+`$ (17)
$`J_4(0)\mathrm{cos}(Re(\stackrel{~}{n}_1\stackrel{~}{n}_2)\omega x/c)\}.`$
The initial partial intensities are defined from the following relations:

$`J_1(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1X_1\xi _1(0)+X_2\xi _2(0)+X_3\xi _3(0)}{2(X_2^2+X_3^2)}},`$ (18)
$`J_2(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1X_1\xi _1(0)X_2\xi _2(0)X_3\xi _3(0)}{2(X_2^2+X_3^2)}},`$ (19)
$`J_3(0)={\displaystyle \frac{X_1\xi _1(0)X_1^2}{2(X_2^2+X_3^2)}},`$ (20)
$`J_4(0)={\displaystyle \frac{X_1(X_2\xi _3(0)X_3\xi _2(0))}{2(X_2^2+X_3^2)}}.`$ (21)
The relations between $`X_i`$ and $`Y_i`$ values were used, because of this the $`Y_i`$-values are absent in Eqs.(18)-(21). Besides, we assume that $`J_\gamma (0)=1`$. Now one can obtain the differential form of these equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_\gamma }{dx}}=J_\gamma (𝒢𝒞\xi _2\xi _3),`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _1}{dx}}=𝒞\xi _1\xi _2\xi _1\xi _3𝒜\xi _2𝒟\xi _3,`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _2}{dx}}=𝒞(1\xi _2^2)\xi _2\xi _3+𝒜\xi _1,`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _3}{dx}}=(1\xi _3^2)𝒞\xi _2\xi _3+𝒟\xi _1.`$ (25)
where

$`𝒜=(\eta _{11}^{}\eta _{22}^{})/2,`$ (26)
$`=(\eta _{11}^{\prime \prime }\eta _{22}^{\prime \prime })/2,`$ (27)
$`𝒞=(\eta _{12}^{}\eta _{21}^{})/2,`$ (28)
$`𝒟=(\eta _{12}^{\prime \prime }\eta _{21}^{\prime \prime })/2,`$ (29)
$`𝒢=(\stackrel{~}{n_1^{\prime \prime }}+\stackrel{~}{n_2^{\prime \prime }})=(\eta _{11}^{\prime \prime }+\eta _{22}^{\prime \prime })/2.`$ (30)
It should be noted, that these equations are true only at $`|\delta _{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\alpha \beta }|1`$ , where $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Kroneker $`\delta `$-function. This is due to the fact that the intensity of photon beam is calculated approximately ($`J\mathrm{𝐃𝐃}^{}`$).

The differential form of equations for the general case of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor may be obtained by the similar direct calculations. However, another method is more conveniently to use for it. Knowing the relations for Stokes parameters in an anisotropic medium , one can find the differential equations for this case. They have a similar form as Eqs.(22)-(25). Combining these equations and Eqs.(22)-(25) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_\gamma }{dx}}=J_\gamma (𝒢\xi _1𝒞\xi _2\xi _3),`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _1}{dx}}=(1\xi _1^2)𝒞\xi _1\xi _2\xi _1\xi _3𝒜\xi _2𝒟\xi _3,`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _2}{dx}}=𝒞(1\xi _2^2)\xi _1\xi _2\xi _2\xi _3+𝒜\xi _1\xi _3,`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _3}{dx}}=(1\xi _3^2)\xi _1\xi _3𝒞\xi _2\xi _3+𝒟\xi _1+\xi _2,`$ (34)
where

$`=(\eta _{12}^{}+\eta _{21}^{})/2,`$ (35)
$`=(\eta _{12}^{\prime \prime }+\eta _{21}^{\prime \prime })/2,`$ (36)
and $`𝒜,,𝒞,𝒟,𝒢`$ are the same as in Eqs.(26)-(30).

It is clear that these equations are required and they describe the propagation process in the general case. It obvious from following:

1) the form of relations for intensity and Stokes parameters for the general case is similar to Eqs.(9)-(21). The main difference is contained that $`J_1(0),J_2(0),J_3(0),J_4(0)`$-values have another mathematical representation. However, it is significant that these values are linear functions of Stokes parameters;

2) the derivatives of Stokes parameters in Eqs.(32)-(34) are equal to zero when $`\xi _1=X_1,Y_1,\xi _2=X_2,Y_2`$ and $`\xi _3=X_3,Y_3`$. This fact supports the choice of $`𝒜,\mathrm{},`$\- parameters (see Eqs.(26)-(29) and (35)-(36));

3) Eq.(31) for intensity was obtained in  for the general case.

Note that $`(𝒢\xi _1𝒞\xi _2\xi _3)0`$ for any real medium.

The obtained here equations describe the variations of intensity and Stokes parameters for photon beam propagating in the medium, whose optical properties may be represented by the use of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor. Besides, one can get the following equation for variations of polarization $`P=\sqrt{\xi _1^2+\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2}`$ of propagating photon:

$$\frac{c}{2\omega }\frac{dP^2}{dx}=(1P^2)(\xi _1𝒞\xi _2\xi _3).$$
(37)
## 3 Classification

Obtained in previous section equations describe all the cases of propagation of photons in a medium. The difference between various cases is determined by the kind of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor. Here we consider briefly all the possible cases of the photon beam propagation in media.

First and foremost it should be noted that the maximal number of values, which determinate the variations of photon state at its propagation in a medium, is equal to seven. However, the $`𝒢`$-value is responsible only for the intensity of photon beam (see Eqs.(31)-(34)). By this means only six (or less) values ($`𝒜,\mathrm{},`$) is required for description of the variations of photon polarization state . On the other hand, one can make the $``$-value (or $``$-value) equal to zero by rotation of the coordinate system around the wave vector of photon. It is simplify Eqs.(31)-(34), but does not reduce the number of parameters (in this case the angle of rotation is such a parameter). For further consideration we select coordinate system in which $`=0`$.

It is obviously that medium is transparent if $`\frac{dJ_\gamma }{dx}=0`$. This condition take a place at $`𝒢=0,=0,𝒞=0,=0`$. The excellent example of transparent medium is the monochromatic laser wave of not high intensity. The beam of $`\gamma `$-quanta propagates in its practically without interactions if the energy of the beam is less then the threshold of electron-positron pair production. Taking into account the importance of this case for practice, we write the solution of Eqs.(31)-(34) for transparent medium in the following form:

$`\xi _1(x)=\xi _1(0)\mathrm{cos}\varphi +(\xi _2(0)X_3\xi _3(0)X_2)\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$ (38)
$`\xi _2(x)=\xi _1(0)X_3\mathrm{sin}\varphi +X_2^2\xi _2(0)+X_2X_3\xi _3(0)+(\xi _2(0)X_3^2\xi _3(0)X_2X_3)\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ (39)
$`\xi _3(0)=\xi _1(0)X_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi +X_2X_3\xi _2(0)+X_3^2\xi _3(0)+(\xi _3(0)X_2^2\xi _2(0)X_2X_3)\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ (40)
where $`\varphi =Re(\stackrel{~}{n_1}\stackrel{~}{n_2})\omega x/c`$ and $`X_2,X_3`$ are calculated with the help of Eqs.(4)-(6). Specifically, these equations describe the well-known cases of the light propagation as birefringence ($`X_2=0,X_3=\pm 1`$) and Faraday rotation ($`X_2=\pm 1,X_3=0`$). It easy to see that $`P=const`$ in the transparent medium. Note that the absolute transparent medium is only physical abstraction .

In general any tensor of second rank may be decomposed on the two parts: symmetric and antisymmetric. The antisymmetric part is dual to some axial vector, named as the vector of gyration. When the vector of gyration is equal to zero, the medium is named as anisotropic one. It means that the optical properties of anisotropic medium are determined by a symmetric $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor, or, in other words, in the case under consideration the following relations are true: $`𝒞=0`$, $`𝒟=0`$. We remind that $`=0`$ due to the choice of the coordinate system. The anisotropic media may be classified by the help of the two types of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor. In the first case $`=0`$, and $`0`$ in the second case. The linearly polarized monochromatic laser wave is a simple example of the anisotropic medium of the first type . In this case the normal electromagnetic waves are linearly polarized along the principal axis of the $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor and result of propagation of the initially linearly polarized photon beam in this medium is the effect of birefringence. This effect applies to transparent $`=0`$ and absorbed $`0`$ media. However, in absorbed media of considered type  the initially unpolarized propagating photon beam becomes linearly polarized (at $`x\mathrm{}`$).

The case of anisotropic medium of the second type take a place only for absorbed media. This case was considered in different media like single crystals , plasma , laser wave . In this case the normal electromagnetic waves are elliptically polarized. It is interesting that $`X_2=Y_2`$ for this waves. The initially unpolarized propagating in this medium photon beam becomes linearly and circularly polarized. The simplest sample of the anisotropic medium of the second type for high energy photons is a dichromatic laser wave. (The dichromatic wave is a superposition of the two linearly polarized laser waves with different frequencies moving in the same direction and, broadly speaking, nonzero angle direction of polarization of these wave.)

The case of isotropic medium is described by the following relations: $`𝒜=0,=0,𝒞=0,𝒟=0,=0`$. It is obviously that the initial polarization state of photon beam is conserved at its propagation in the isotropic medium.

Now we consider the medium with the nonzero gyration vector. There are five cases of propagation of the photon beams. The first and second cases are the pure (transparent and absorbent, correspondingly) gyrotropic medium: $`𝒜=0,=0,=0,=0`$ and one or both of the values $`𝒞,𝒟`$ are not equal to zero. The normal electromagnetic waves are circularly polarized ($`X_2=Y_2`$). The Faraday rotation take a place if $`𝒞=0`$. The circularly polarized monochromatic wave is the sample of such a medium ($`𝒞=0`$, $`𝒟0`$ or both the values are not equal to zero) for propagating $`\gamma `$-beam with energy below (above) of threshold of pair production.

The third and fourth cases are the gyrotropic medium with anisotropy of the first type ($`=0`$, $`𝒞=0`$, $`=0`$ for transparent and $`=0`$ for absorbent media). These cases are described with the help of Eqs.(38)-(40) and Eqs.(9)-(12) for transparent and absorbent media, correspondingly. The elliptically polarized monochromatic laser wave is the sample of such a medium.

The last case is the gyrotropic medium with the anisotropy of the second type. The normal electromagnetic waves for this medium have the different absolute values of circular and linear polarizations ($`|X_2||Y_2|,X_1^2+X^3Y_1^2+Y_3^2`$). The sample of this medium is bichromatic combination of the two elliptically polarized waves moving in the same direction with the arbitrary angle between the semiaxis of polarization ellipses of these laser waves ( for propagating $`\gamma `$-beam above the threshold of pair production).

The considered in this section cases of propagation are represented in table 1. In this table we assume conventionally that medium is transparent (T) independently of the quantity of $`𝒢`$-value. It allows to avoid the consideration of additional unimportant cases.

Note, that the problems of C, P, T symmetries at propagation of the photon beam were investigated in .

## 4 Discussion

Eqs.(31)-(34) describe all the cases of propagation of photons in uniform (the components of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor are constant along the direction of photon beam motion at fixed $`\omega `$) media. These differential equations of the first order have enough a simple form and dependent on differences of the corresponding components of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor. Besides, the equations were obtained at condition that $`|\eta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\alpha \beta }|1`$. One can find the some solutions of Eqs.(31)-(34) depending on a kind of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor . We do not know universal solution of these equations (the first integrals) describing all the cases of propagation.

Eqs.(31)-(34) one can use for calculations of the propagation of photon beams in not uniform media, when the components of the $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor are functions of coordinate along direction of the photon wave vector. The condition, when this approximation is warrant, is smallness of dimensionless parameters $`c/(R\omega )`$ relative to unit, where $`R`$ is the distance of constancy of tensor components. In other words, these components should be fixed on the distances of photon wave length.

Note, that in paper  the process of propagation of the high energy $`\gamma `$-quanta in the monochromatic laser wave of arbitrary polarization was considered. For this purpose the well known scattering amplitudes for elastic scattering light by light  were used. As a result the differential equations similar in form to Eqs.(22)-(25) were obtained. Comparison of Eqs.(22)-(25) and similar ones in  allows to make conclusion that in this case the components of $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$-tensor are linear combinations of the invariant helicity amplitudes for the forward light by light scattering.

The propagating in an medium photon beam can be represented as a superposition of two normal electromagnetic waves with the different refractive indices. Because of this, in absorbent media one normal wave is absorbed to greater extent than other and after propagation of some distance only this wave would then be left behind.

On the other hand, every normal wave propagates in such a way that its polarization state is conserved. Setting $`d\xi _1/dx=0,d\xi _2/dx=0,d\xi _3/dx=0`$ in Eqs.(31)-(34) we can find the Stokes parameters of these waves (see Eqs.(4)-(6)). However, in the case of transparent medium the equations have infinite set of solutions and the third equation is $`\xi _1^2+\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2=1`$.

Eq.(37) is the consequence of Eqs.(31)-(34). The total polarization $`|P|`$ is decreased or increased in the relation of sign of the right side of Eq.(37). In the case, when $`,𝒞,`$ are equal to zero $`P=const`$. On the other hand, it is easy to get for the absorbent medium:

$$P^2(x)=1\frac{(1P_0^2)\mathrm{exp}(2𝒢\omega x/c)}{J_\gamma ^2(x)},$$
(41)
where $`P_0=P(0)`$ is the initial total polarization. Note, that $`J_\gamma (0)=1`$. Besides, the value $`𝒢\omega /c`$ is the inverse mean path of the unpolaraized photons in the medium and may be measured in principle. The obtained simple relation is universal and may be useful for experimental determination of photon beam polarization.

We have considered the propagation of monochromatic photons in media. The absorption of photon means one of the two possibilities: a) scattering; b) vanishing. Compton effect and pair production are the samples of these possibilities for $`\gamma `$-quanta. As a result, the cascade process take a place in media. As a rule for description of cascade processes the kinetic equations are used . The kernels of these equations are the differential probabilities (in particular, per unit length) of the possible elementary processes. From this point of view Eqs.(31)-(34). may be useful in similar calculations.

We understand that our classification (see Table 1) is a matter of convention to a degree. For instance, cases 5 and 6 from table 1 at very small $`𝒞`$-value give practically the same description of linearly polarized photon-beam propagation on short distances. However, even so, photon beam obtains a small value of circular polarization (in case 6). Note, that on infinity this beam becomes completely circularly polarized, whereas in case 5 beam remains always linearly polarized.

Besides, case 4 at $`𝒜=\pm `$ and $`=0`$ may be considered as special one. Under this condition the refractive indices of normal waves are equal in between and $`X_2=Y_2`$ (see for detail ). However, we interpret its as limit of case 4.

It should be noted that the analytical solutions of Eqs.(31)-(34) are exist and their full number is less than the number of cases in Table 1. The universal solution for cases 1-3, 5-7 one can found in the appendix of paper . The propagation in anisotropic medium of the second type (case 4) is considered in . Eqs.(9)-(12) describe the propagation process in the gyrotropic medium with the anisotropy of the first type.

## 5 Conclusions

The derived equations for intensity and Stokes parameters of the monochromatic photons propagating in an uniform medium, whose optical properties may be described by the permittivity tensor, is a central result. The equations have the simple form and the variation of the Stokes parameters is determined only by the differences of corresponding components of the inverse $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ of the permittivity tensor. It is shown that the equations may be used under certain conditions for calculations of the photon beam propagation in not uniform media.

On the basic of these equations the classification of different cases of photon propagation are suggested.

The problem of generalization of Eqs.(31)-(34) for arbitrary quantities of permittivity tensor components is of interest and requires further consideration.

Our results may be useful for investigations in astrophysics, and in some areas of high energy and nuclear physics, and physics of condensed media.


text:
# Optical excitations of a self assembled artificial ion

## Abstract

By use of magneto-photoluminescence spectroscopy we demonstrate bias controlled single-electron charging of a single quantum dot. Neutral, single, and double charged excitons are identified in the optical spectra. At high magnetic fields one Zeeman component of the single charged exciton is found to be quenched, which is attributed to the competing effects of tunneling and spin-flip processes. Our experimental data are in good agreement with theoretical model calculations for situations where the spatial extent of the hole wave functions is smaller as compared to the electron wave functions.

Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are often referred to as artificial atoms. Different levels of neutral occupancies in QDs have been obtained in the last years by power dependent optical excitation. The associated few particle states have been intensively studied by multi-exciton photoluminescence (PL) spectroscopy and corresponding theoretical investigations . Occupancies with different numbers of electrons and holes result in charged exciton complexes. In analogy to QDs with neutral occupancy —artificial atoms— charged exciton complexes may be considered as artificial ions. In the field of low dimensional semiconductors charged excitons have been observed first in quantum well structures . In QDs, charged excitons have been studied in inhomogeneously broadened ensembles by PL  as well as in interband transmission experiments , and recently also in single, optically tunable QDs  as well as electrically tunable quantum rings by PL .

Few-particle theory predicts binding energies for charged QD excitons in the order of some meV . This allows for the controlled manipulation of energetically well separated few particle states under the action of an external gate electrode. Discrete and stable numbers of extra charges are thereby possible via the Coulomb blockade mechanism. In future experiments and possible applications the resonant optical absorption and emission of such systems is expected to be tunable between discrete and characteristic energies. Moreover such few-particle systems are expected to exhibit an interesting variety of spin configurations, which can be controlled by external magnetic field, gate induced occupancy, and spin selective optical excitation.

In the present contribution we present for the first time experimental and theoretical results on the gate-controlled charging of a single InGaAs QD with an increasing number of electrons probed by magneto-PL.

For controlled charging of individual QDs a special electric field tunable n-i structure has been grown by molecular beam epitaxy. The In0.5Ga0.5As QDs are embedded in an i-GaAs region 40 nm above an n-doped GaAs layer ($`5\times 10^{18}cm^3`$) which acts as back contact. The growth of the QDs is followed by 270 nm i-GaAs, a 40 nm thick Al0.3Ga0.7As blocking layer, and a 10 nm i-GaAs cap layer. As a Schottky gate we use a 5 nm thick semitransparent Ti layer. The samples were processed as photodiodes combined with electron beam structured shadow masks with apertures ranging from 200 nm to 800 nm. Schematic overviews of the sample and the band diagram are shown in Figs. 1 a and b. The occupation of the QD with electrons can be controlled by an external bias voltage $`V_B`$ on the Schottky gate with respect to the back contact. For increasing $`V_B`$ the band flattens and the electron levels of the QD are shifted below the Fermi energy of the n-GaAs back contact, which results in successive single electron charging of the QD. In our experiments excitons are generated optically at low rate and form charged excitons together with the $`V_B`$ induced extra electrons in the QD. We used a HeNe laser (632.8 nm) for optical excitation and a cooled CCD camera for detection of the PL. The sample was mounted in a confocal low-temperature, high magnetic field microscope .

In Fig. 2 a and b we present PL spectra as a function of $`V_B`$ in the range of -550 mV to +400 mV corresponding to electric fields of 37.5 kV/cm to 11.1 kV/cm. The PL intensity is displayed as gray scale plot for B=0 T in Fig. 2 a and for B=12 T in Fig. 2 b. As a function of $`V_B`$ we find a series of lines with discrete jumps in the emission energy. Those lines are assigned to radiative s-shell transitions of neutral ($`X^0`$), single charged ($`X^{}`$), and double charged ($`X^2`$) excitons, as marked in Figs. 2 a and b and discussed in the following. For B=0 T (Fig. 2 a) and large negative $`V_B`$ ($`V_B<0.5V`$) the electron levels in the QD are far above the Fermi energy of the n-GaAs back contact and the QD is electrically neutral. Optically generated excitons can relax into the QD, but before radiative recombination ($`\tau 1ns`$) the carriers tunnel out of the QD due to the high applied electric field. For $`V_B0.5V`$ the QD is still uncharged, but in the smaller electric field radiative recombination gets more likely and the $`X^0`$ emission line appears at 1307 meV. The weak satellite about 0.4 meV below is tentatively explained in terms of QD asymmetry . With increasing $`V_B`$, the $`X^0`$ line shifts to higher energies due to the quantum confined Stark effect in the decreasing electric field. For $`V_B=0.35V`$ a new emission line appears below the $`X^0`$ line at 1302.5 meV, indicating the static occupation of the QD with one electron. The $`X^{}`$ binding energy with respect to the $`X^0`$ is determined to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_X^{}=4.6meV`$ by the measured difference in emission energies. For $`0.35V<V_B<0V`$ the $`X^0`$ and $`X^{}`$ line coexist, which is a consequence of the statistical nature of non-resonant optical excitation. In the presence of one extra electron, the capture and subsequent decay of an electron hole pair leads to the emission of a $`X^{}`$ photon. If only a single hole is captured we expect a $`X^0`$ photon, and if a single electron is captured we expect no photon, but instead electron back transfer to the $`n^+`$ region. At $`V_B=0V`$ the QD is charged with a second electron. This leads to the appearance of two new characteristic emission lines (marked in Fig. 2 a and b), which are assigned to the $`X^2`$ decay. The main line of the $`X^2`$ emission appears only 0.3 meV below the $`X^{}`$ line, whereas a much weaker satellite peak appears 4.6 meV below the main line at 1298.1 meV. The appearance of two emission lines is characteristic for the $`X^2`$ decay. The energy difference between the two $`X^2`$ lines corresponds to the difference in the s-p exchange energies between the two possible final states with parallel or antiparallel spin orientation of the two remaining electrons . Again $`X^2`$ and $`X^{}`$ can be observed simultaneously over a certain range in $`V_B`$. At $`V_B>0.19V`$ only one broad emission line remains. This indicates filling of the wetting layer (WL) states with electrons. Here, weakly confined electrons are interacting with the carriers in the QD, causing a broadening of the detected s-shell decay in the QD. A rough estimation of the $`V_B`$ increment needed to bring the WL states below the Fermi energy (starting from the onset of the $`X^{}`$ line), taking charging energy and the electrostatics of the structure into account , results in a reasonable value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_B=530mV`$ in good agreement with our experimental data.

For a quantitative analysis of the experimental results we performed theoretical model calcualtions. Following the approach presented in Ref. , we assume for electrons and holes, respectively, a confinement potential which is parabolic in the $`(x,y)`$-plane and box-like along $`z`$; despite its simplicity, such confinement is known to mimic the most important characteristics of InxGa1-xAs dots, and has recently proven successful in comparison with experiment . We take 5 nm for the well width in $`z`$-direction and $`\mathrm{}\omega _0^e=30`$ meV ($`\mathrm{}\omega _0^h=15`$ meV) for the electron (hole) confinement energies due to the in-plane parabolic potential; material parameters are computed according to Refs.  (note that with these values we also well reproduce the $``$40 meV splitting between the $`1s`$ and $`1p`$ shells measured at higher photo-excitation powers). Finally, because of the strong quantum confinement in $`z`$-direction we safely neglect minor effects due to the applied external electric field. PL spectra for $`X^0`$, $`X^{}`$, and $`X^2`$ are computed within a direct-diagonalization approach accounting for all possible e-e and e-h Coulomb interactions

The black lines in Fig. 3 show the dependence of the luminescence spectra of the $`X^0`$, $`X^{}`$, and $`X^2`$ lines as function of the extension $`L_0^h`$ of the hole wavefunction (for definition see figure caption). In accordance with experiment and related work  we find (for $`L_0^hL_0^e`$) in the PL spectra: a red-shift of the charged-exciton emission peak $`X^{}`$; a further, much smaller, red-shift of the main $`X^2`$ emission peak, which is accompanied by a weak satellite peak at even lower photon energy (see arrows). A quantitative comparison between theory and experiment, however, reveals that for the same extension of electron and hole wavefunctions ($`L_0^e=L_0^h`$) the calculated charged-exciton binding of 1.5 meV is by a factor of $``$3 smaller than the measured value; we checked that this finding does not depend decisevly on small modifications of the chosen dot and material parameters. As can be inferred from Fig. 3, the $`V_B`$ binding energy is a quite sensitive measure of the relative extension of electron and hole wavefunctions: Decreasing $`L_0^h`$ and keeping all other parameters ($`\omega _0^e`$, $`\omega _0^h`$, $`L_0^e`$) fixed, one clearly observes in Fig. 3 an increased binding (moderate parameter changes turn out to have no impact on this general trend; see, e.g., gray lines).

We thus conclude that the large experimental $`X^{}`$ binding energy of 4.6 meV can only be explained by more localized hole wavefunctions, which we attribute to effects of heavier hole masses and of possible piezoelectric fields. Additional evidence for this interpretation comes from the ratio between the exchange splitting of the two $`X^2`$ lines and the $`X^{}`$ binding energy. The experimentally observed exchange splitting of about 4.6 meV between the weak low energy and intense high energy branch of the $`X^2`$ line is found to be approximately equal to the $`X^{}`$ binding energy. From our theoretical investigations such a scenario can only be obtained if the hole confinement is considerably stronger than the electron confinement.

Finally we discuss the magnetic field dependence shown in Fig. 2 b for B=12 T. From comparison with the B=0 T data (Fig. 2 a) it is clear that single electron charging versus $`V_B`$ is mostly unaffected by magnetic field. The centers of s-shell emission for $`X^0`$, $`X^{}`$, and $`X^2`$ are shifted to higher energies due to diamagnetic shift and each emission line splits into two lines, separated by the Zeeman energy. The observed weak differences between the Zeeman energies of the $`X^0`$ and $`X^{}`$ lines seem to indicate, that the spin orientation of an extra electron in the QD does not change during the radiative decay from the s-shell.

In the following we concentrate on the asymmetry in the PL-intensities of the two Zeeman branches of the $`X^{}`$ line for $`0.35V<V_B<0.13V`$ (see Fig. 2 b). This asymmetry is observed only for the $`X^{}`$ line, not for the $`X^0`$ and $`X^2`$ lines. The explanation of this phenomenon involves spin polarization, Pauli blocking, and state selective tunneling as summarized in Fig. 4 a and b. At B=12 T a single electron in a QD is spin polarized in thermal equilibrium. The optical excitation of excitons can happen with two different spin orientations, which results in the states shown in Fig. 4 a and b. Due to Pauli blocking in the conduction band, parallel electron spin orientation leads to a metastable triplet state with one electron in the s-shell and one in the p-shell (see Fig. 4 a). If the tunneling time from the p-shell to the continuum is shorter than the electron spin-flip time, an electron is lost and we end up with a neutral exciton and hence with a contribution to one Zeeman component of the $`X^0`$ line, i.e. we lose one Zeeman component of the $`X^{}`$ decay. The introduction of an exciton with opposite spin orientation, however, produces a singlet state as shown in Fig. 4 b. The radiative decay of this configuration contributes to the other Zeeman component of the $`X^{}`$ line. Our findings also imply that the associated heavy hole spin flip time should be at least of the same order or longer than the e-h lifetime. Long spin-flip times and conservation of the exciton spin within the exciton lifetime has been reported already earlier for zero-dimensional systems at high magnetic fields . The suppression of one $`X^{}`$ Zeeman component persists over a $`V_B`$ range of 0.22 V, which translates to an energy shift of the QD states with respect to the n-GaAs Fermi energy of 28 meV (about to conduction band s-p separation). For $`V_B>0.13V`$ both Zeeman components of the $`X^{}`$ line are recovered as a consequence of the increased tunneling time, which allows now for the competing spin flip and relaxation process to the s-shell. For the $`X^0`$ and $`X^2`$ lines a quenching of Zeeman lines is not expected and also not observed, since the p-shell is either never ($`X^0`$) or always ($`X^2`$) populated, regardless of the spin orientation of the optically excited e-h pair.

In summary, we have demonstrated bias controlled charging of a single QD in magneto-optic PL experiments. The few-particle interaction energies determined experimentally for the $`X^{}`$ and $`X^2`$ states are found to be in good agreement with our theoretical model for situations where the spatial extent of the hole wave functions is smaller as compared to the electron wave functions. Spin polarization and lifting of the Zeeman degeneracy at high magnetic fields allows further access to so far unexplored spin dependent properties of few particle states. The suppression of one Zeeman component of the $`X^{}`$ decay is explained in terms of state selective tunneling from a spin triplet configuration.

This work has been supported financially by the DFG via SFB 348, by the BMBF via 01BM917, in part by INFM through PRA-99-SSQI, and by the EU under the TMR Network “Ultrafast Quantum Optoelectronics” and the IST programme “SQID”.