text:
# A crib-shaped triplet pairing gap function for an orthogonal pair of quasi-one dimensional Fermi surfaces in Sr2RuO4

## Abstract

The competition between spin-triplet and singlet pairings is studied theoretically for the tight-binding $`\alpha `$-$`\beta `$ bands in Sr2RuO4, which arise from two sets of quasi-one dimensional Fermi surfaces. Using multiband FLEX approximation, where we incorporate an anisotropy in the spin fluctuations as suggested from experiments, we show that (i) the triplet can dominate over the singlet (which turns out to be extended s), and (ii) the triplet gap function optimized in the Eliashberg equation has an unusual, very non-sinusoidal form, whose time-reversal-broken combination exhibits a crib-shaped amplitude with dips.

Spin-triplet superconductivity is of great conceptual importance. It is interesting to ask how the spins in a Cooper pair can align, since usually the singlet pairing is favored so that some special mechanism should be envisaged to account for a triplet superconductivity. The $`p`$-wave pairing in superfluid 3He is an outstanding example, where a clear picture of the hard-core interaction favoring the triplet exists.

In the past several years, Sr2RuO4 has attracted much attention as a strong candidate for triplet superconductivity. In a seminal paper, Rice and Sigrist suggested a mechanism for triplet pairing in this material, which they call an ‘electronic version of He’. In their scenario the orbital degeneracy causes ferromagnetic spin fluctuations, which is considered to favor the triplet pairing. Subsequent experiments indeed suggested triplet pairing. However, a new puzzle arose when the spin fluctuation in Sr2RuO4 was found to be antiferromagnetic rather than ferromagnetic in a neutron scattering experiment. Usual wisdom dictates that antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations lead to singlet $`d`$-wave pairing.

Recently, Kuwabara and one of the present authors, and independently Sato and Kohmoto, have proposed that anisotropy in the spin-fluctuation, observed in NMR experiments for Sr2RuO4, may lead to triplet $`p`$-wave pairing. However, simple functional forms for triplet and singlet gap functions were assumed in ref., i.e., $`\mathrm{sin}k_x(+i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ for $`p`$-wave and $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$ for $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave. In ref., the form of the gap when the quasi-1D Fermi surfaces are hybridized was discussed only qualitatively. The form of the gap function is crucial in discussing the triplet-singlet competition, so the functional form should be optimized. The form of the gap function is also important in comparing with experimental results because, e.g., some recent experiments have suggested presence of nodes in the superconducting gap, while a thermal conductivity measurement suggests an isotropic gap.

The purpose of the present paper is to determine the functional form of the superconducting gap function self-consistently for the spin-anisotropy mechanism mentioned above. We adopt the fluctuation exchange (FLEX) approximation, in which we incorporate anisotropy in the spin fluctuations. The FLEX results are then fed into the linearized Eliashberg equation to obtain the gap function. The optimized triplet gap function turns out to have unexpected, non-sinusoidal forms, which are in sharp contrast with the $`k_x`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}k_x`$ gap functions assumed previously. As a result, the amplitude of the gap has a shape of a crib along the Fermi surface, which may resolve the controversial experiments. The origin of the peculiar behavior of the gap function is traced back to the singular $`k`$-dependence in the spin susceptibility due to a nesting of two sets of quasi-one dimensional Fermi surfaces.

The ruthenate is essentially a three-band system, which arises from $`d_{xz}`$ orbitals aligned linearly along the $`x`$ axis, $`d_{yz}`$ along the $`y`$, and $`d_{xy}`$ in the $`xy`$ plane. The former two give rise to the $`\alpha ,\beta `$ bands, which are well nested due to the quasi-one dimensionality and causes antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations. In this paper, we concentrate on the $`\alpha ,\beta `$ bands, namely, we consider a tight-binding model,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=xz,yz}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ii^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{nn}}{}}}(c_{i\sigma }^mc_{i^{}\sigma }^m+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (1)
$``$ $`t^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{\overset{\mathrm{nnn}}{}}}(c_{i\sigma }^{xz}c_{j\sigma }^{yz}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=xz,yz}{}}n_i^mn_i^m.`$ (2)
on a square lattice. Here $`c_{i\sigma }^m`$ creates an electron at $`d_m(m=xz`$ or $`yz`$) orbital. the nearest-neighbor hopping integral $`t`$ is along the $`x(y)`$ direction for $`d_{xz}(d_{yz})`$ orbitals. We take $`t=1`$ as a unit of energy.

We have also included the next nearest-neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ which corresponds to a weak hybridization. When $`t^{}0`$ the two sets of quasi-one-dimensional bands anticross, and two two-dimensional (rounded-square) bands result, which are the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ bands. The on-site repulsive interaction, $`U`$, is considered within each orbitals, and interorbital interactions are neglected for simplicity. The band filling is $`n=4/3`$ electrons per orbital in Sr2RuO4.

In treating the interaction, we employ the FLEX approximation. This method is a kind of self-consistent random-phase approximation (RPA) where the dressed Green’s function is used in the RPA diagrams. In the multiband version of FLEX, the Green’ function $`G`$, the susceptibility $`\chi `$, the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and the superconducting gap function $`\varphi `$ all become $`2\times 2`$ matrices, e.g., $`G_{lm}(𝐤,i\epsilon _n)`$, where $`l,m`$ denote $`d_{yz}`$ or $`d_{xz}`$ orbitals. The orbital-indexed matrices for Green’s function and the gap functions can be converted into band-indexed ones with a unitary transformation. As for the spin susceptibility, we diagonalize the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\chi _{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}`$ and concentrate on the larger eigenvalue, denoted as $`\chi ^{zz}`$.

The actual calculation proceeds as follows:

(i) Dyson’s equation is solved to obtain the renormalized Green’s function $`G(k)`$, where $`k`$ is a shorthand for the wave vector $`𝐤`$ and the Matsubara frequency, $`iϵ_n`$,

(ii) The fluctuation-exchange interaction $`V^{(1)}(q)`$ is given as

$$V^{(1)}(q)=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}(q)+V_{\mathrm{sp}}^+(q)+\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{ch}}(q).$$
(3)
The effective interactions due to longitudinal $`(zz)`$ and transverse $`(+)`$ spin fluctuations (sp) and that due to charge fluctuations (ch) have the forms $`V_{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}=U^2\chi _{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}`$, $`V_{\mathrm{sp}}^+=U^2\chi _{\mathrm{sp}}^+`$, and $`V_{\mathrm{ch}}=U^2\chi _{\mathrm{ch}}`$, respectively, where the spin and the charge susceptibilities are

$`\chi _{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi ^{\mathrm{irr}}(q)[1U\chi ^{\mathrm{irr}}(q)]^1,`$ (4)
$`\chi _{\mathrm{sp}}^+(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \chi ^{\mathrm{irr}}(q)[1U\alpha \chi ^{\mathrm{irr}}(q)]^1,`$ (5)
$`\chi _{\mathrm{ch}}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi ^{\mathrm{irr}}(q)[1+U\chi ^{\mathrm{irr}}(q)]^1,`$ (6)
in terms of the irreducible susceptibility $`\chi ^{\mathrm{irr}}(q)=\frac{1}{N}_kG(k+q)G(k)`$ ($`N`$:number of $`k`$-point meshes). Here we have taken account of the anisotropy in the spin fluctuation by introducing a phenomelogical parameter $`\alpha `$ à la Kuwabara-Ogata. From the NMR experiments, we assume $`\alpha <1`$.

(iii) $`V^{(1)}`$ then brings about the self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)=\frac{1}{N}_qG(kq)V^{(1)}(q)`$, which is fed back to Dyson’s equation, and the self-consistent iterations are repeated until convergence is attained. We take $`64\times 64`$ $`k`$-point meshes and up to 16384 Matsubara frequencies in order to ensure convergence at low temperatures.

We determine $`T_c`$ as the temperature at which the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of the Éliashberg equation,

$`\lambda _\mu \varphi _{\mu lm}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{},m^{}}{}}`$ (8)
$`\times V_{\mu lm}^{(2)}(kk^{})G_{ll^{}}(k^{})G_{mm^{}}(k^{})\varphi _{\mu l^{}m^{}}(k^{}),`$
reaches unity. Here the pairing interaction $`V_\mu ^{(2)}`$ is given by

$$V_s^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}+V_{\mathrm{sp}}^+\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{ch}}$$
(9)
for singlet pairing,

$$V_t^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{ch}}$$
(10)
for triplet pairing with $`S_z=\pm 1`$ ($`\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{z}`$), and

$$V_t^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}V_{\mathrm{sp}}^+\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{ch}}$$
(11)
for triplet pairing with $`S_z=0`$ ($`\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{z}`$). Here $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ is the $`d`$-vector characterizing the triplet pairing gap function.

When the electron-electron repulsion, which causes fluctuations, is short-ranged (as for the Hubbard $`U`$ interaction) the spin fluctuations are much stronger than the charge fluctuations, i.e., $`(V_{\mathrm{sp}}V_{\mathrm{ch}})`$. When fluctuations for a certain (‘nesting’) wave vector Q are pronounced, the main contribution in the summation in eq.(8) comes from those satisfying $`𝐤𝐤^{}𝐐`$, which should be the case when the Fermi surface is nested. The present Fermi surface is indeed well nested due to the quasi-one-dimensionality.

Now we turn to the results summarized in Fig.1 for $`t^{}=0.3`$ and $`U=5`$. In Fig.1(a), the ridges in $`|G|^2`$ delineate $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ Fermi surfaces. These quasi-1D surfaces are strongly nested at $`𝐪(2\pi /3,q_y)`$ and $`𝐪(q_x,2\pi /3)`$ (mod $`2\pi `$), so that the spin susceptibility is ridged in a crib shape as shown in Fig.1(b), with peaks at the corners, $`𝐪(\pm 2\pi /3,\pm 2\pi /3)`$. This is consistent with neutron scattering experiments.

The triplet and singlet gap functions obtained by solving the Eliashberg equation are shown in Fig.1(c) and (d), respectively. Remarkably, the triplet gap function takes a strange shape: although the symmetry is consistent with $`p`$-wave, its form is far from $`\mathrm{sin}k_x`$ along the rounded-square Fermi surface. Rather, it has an almost constant amplitude on a pair of parallel sides, $`k_x\pm 2\pi /3`$ (mod $`2\pi `$), of the square with a vanishing amplitude on the other pair ($`k_y\pm 2\pi /3`$) of parallel sides. This applies to each of the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ bands. Of course the symmetry dictates that the other solution ($`p_y`$), rotated by 90 degrees from what is described here ($`p_x`$), enters on an equal footing as we shall discuss below.

Why do we have this peculiar behavior for the FLEX+Eliashberg optimized gap function ? To begin with, superconductivity arises due to pair scattering from $`(𝐤,𝐤)`$ to $`(𝐤^{},𝐤^{})`$ mediated by the pairing interaction $`V^{(2)}(𝐪)`$, where $`𝐪=𝐤𝐤^{}`$ is the momentum transfer. From the BCS gap equation we can see that superconductivity arises if the quantity

$$V_\varphi =\frac{_{𝐤,𝐤^{}\mathrm{FS}}V_\mu ^{(2)}(𝐤𝐤^{})\varphi _\mu (𝐤)\varphi _\mu (𝐤^{})}{_{𝐤\mathrm{FS}}[\varphi (𝐤)]^2}$$
(12)
is positive and large, where we denote the gap function as $`\varphi _\mu `$ ($`\mu =s`$ for singlet and $`t`$ for triplet pairing). As discussed by Kuwabara and Ogata, and independently by Sato and Kohmoto, the $`p`$-wave pairing, with $`\varphi _t(𝐤)\varphi _t(𝐤+𝐐)<0`$, is favored when spin anisotropy is so strong as to realize $`V_{\mathrm{sp}}^{zz}(𝐐)>2V_{\mathrm{sp}}^+(𝐐)`$, i.e., $`V_t(𝐐)>0`$. However, the present self-consistent calculation shows that the situation is a little more involved. A key factor is the spin fluctuation that is enhanced along a line

$`𝐪(q_x,2\pi /3)`$. For a given nodal line (vertical for $`p_x`$ pairing), the pair scatterings across one pair of parallel sides of the Fermi surface become all favorable as indicated by $``$ in Fig.2(a). This gives rise to the near-constant gap function on that pair of sides of the Fermi surface. By contrast, the pair scatterings across the other pair of parallel sides ($`\times `$ in Fig.2(a)) lead to

$`V_t^{(2)}(k_xk_x^{},{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})\varphi _t(k_x,{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})\varphi _t(k_x^{},{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})<0`$

in eq.(12) when $`k_x,k_x^{}`$ have the same sign. Since $`V_t^{(2)}`$ is negative, the $`p_x`$-wave gap functions on these sides of the Fermi surface is unfavored. This explains the gap function shown in Fig.1(c).

Now, let us move on to the competing superconducting state in the singlet channel. Although Kuwabara and Ogata discussed a competition between the triplet $`p_x`$-wave and a singlet $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave, we find here that the real competitor (the most stable singlet state) is unexpectedly an extended $`s`$-wave rather than $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave. This is understood as follows. Since $`V_s(𝐐)>0`$ is repulsive, $`\varphi _s(𝐤)\varphi _s(𝐤+𝐐)<0`$ has to be satisfied. For the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave, the $`𝐤,𝐤^{}=𝐤+𝐐`$ on the Fermi surface that

satisfy $`𝐤𝐤^{}(\pm 2\pi /3,\pm 2\pi /3)`$ (mod$`(2\pi ,2\pi )`$) and $`\varphi _s(𝐤)\varphi _s(𝐤^{})<0`$ are only $`𝐤,𝐤^{}(\pm 2\pi /3,0),(0,\pm 2\pi /3)`$ (dashed arrows in Fig.2(b)). By contrast, all the $`𝐤,𝐤^{}`$’s on the Fermi surface with $`𝐤𝐤^{}(\pm 2\pi /3,\pm 2\pi /3)`$ contribute to the extended s-wave pairing (Fig.2(c)).

The competition between the triplet and singlet is quantified by the eigenvalues of the Eliashberg equation, shown in Fig.3 as functions of temperature. It can be seen that for the value of $`\alpha (=0.8)`$ adopted here, the triplet does dominate at low temperatures. The singlet extended-s, although having a greater magnitude of the pairing interaction, has the nodal line running in the vicinity of the Fermi surface (Fig.1(d)), which should be why this pairing is weaker. If we extrapolate $`\lambda `$ to $`T0`$ a finite transition temperature much smaller than $`O(0.01t)`$ is suggested.

The above result and argument are for the $`p_x`$-wave. Obviously, the $`p_y`$-wave should be degenerate with it from symmetry. A complex linear combination of these two, $`p_x+ip_y`$, which breaks the time reversal symmetry, should be the true state below $`T_c`$ since the superconducting gap is maximized for that combination.

The absolute value of the gap function for that linear combination on the Fermi surface,

$$|\varphi (𝐤)|=\left[\varphi _t(k_x,k_y)^2+\varphi _t(k_y,k_x)^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(13)
along the Fermi surface is displayed in Fig.4, which has a crib shape with dips at the corners around $`𝐤(\pm 2\pi /3,\pm 2\pi /3)`$. The dip arises because $`\varphi _t`$ in each of the $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$ channels has already sharp drops at the corner of the Fermi surface. Thus, in phase-insensitive experiments, the gap function obtained here may look like a two-dimensional $`f`$-wave pairing with nodes along $`k_x=\pm k_y`$, since a dip and a node are indistinguishable when the temperature is greater than the dip. Further study on this point is under way.

Discussions with Yuji Matsuda are gratefully acknowledged. This work is in part funded by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education of Japan.


format: text

text:
# Relativistic Chaplygin gas with field-dependent Poincaré symmetry

## 1 Introduction

In the light-cone gauge, a relativistic $`d`$-brane moving in $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensional Minkowski space yields a $`(d,1)`$ dimensional isentropic and irrotational fluid, called the Chaplygin gas . This fluid obeys the equations of motion

$$_tR+\stackrel{}{}\left(R\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)=0,_t\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)^2=\frac{dV}{dR}.$$
(1.1)
where $`R(x,t)0`$ is the density, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x,t)`$ is the velocity potential, and

$$V(R)=\frac{c}{R},c=\mathrm{const}.$$
(1.2)
More generally, one can consider the polytropic potential $`V=cR^n,`$ where $`n`$ is a real constants. In this Letter we shall mostly restrict ourselves to the membrane case $`n=1`$.

One of the surprising features of the Chaplygin system is its large, non-linearly realized, field-dependent symmetry : its manifest $`(d,1)`$-dimensional galilean symmetry extends in fact into a curious $`(d+1,1)`$-dimensional Poincaré dynamical symmetry .

In , this field-dependent Poincaré symmetry was linearized by unfolding the system into a “Kaluza-Klein” spacetime $`M`$, obtained by adding a coordinate $`s`$ to non relativistic space and time, $`x`$ and $`t`$. Then all the field-dependent symmetries became Poincaré transformations of $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensional Minkowski space $`M`$ with metric $`dx^2+2dtds`$. ($`t`$ and $`s`$ are hence light-cone coordinates).

So much for the kinematics. Interestingly, the non-relativistic Chaplygin model could itself be derived by lightlike projection from $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensional Minkowski space $`M`$, 111According to our conventions, $`i,j`$ are spatial indices, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ refer to coordinates on ordinary spacetime, and $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ refer to the extended “Kaluza-Klein” spacetime, $`M`$.. Let us indeed consider two real fields $`\varrho `$ and $`\theta `$ and the potential $`V(\varrho )=\lambda /\varrho `$, and posit the equations (3.11) below.

Then, suitably defining the projected fields (see  for details) we get (1.1) with the potential (1.2). The manifest $`(d+1,1)`$-dimensional Poincaré symmetry of the higher-dimensional model can be shown, furthermore, to be preserved by the conditions (3.15), proving the dynamical Poincaré symmetry. Previous proofs use either a tedious direct calculations  or follow by a rather tricky reduction from membrane theory .

Recently , Jackiw and Polychronakos presented a relativistic generalization of the Chaplygin gas, with Lagrange density

$$L^{\text{JP}}=\mathrm{\Theta }_\tau R\sqrt{R^2c^2+a^2}\sqrt{c^2+(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta })^2},$$
(1.3)
where $`\tau `$ denotes the relativistic time, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the momentum potential, $`\rho `$ the density, and the constant $`a`$ is the interaction strength. This specific form is chosen so that the non-relativistic Chaplygin model is recovered in the limit $`c\mathrm{}`$. In what follows we set $`c=1`$ and focus our attention to the relativistic model. The equations of motion associated to (1.3) read

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_\tau R+\stackrel{}{}\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }\sqrt{\frac{R^2+a^2}{1+(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta })^2}}\right)=0,\\ _\tau \mathrm{\Theta }+R\sqrt{\frac{1+(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta })^2}{R^2+a^2}}=0.\end{array}$$
(1.4)
The manifest $`(d,1)`$-dimensional Poincaré symmetry of (1.3) extends, just like for its non-relativistic counterpart, to a field-dependent $`(d+1,1)`$-dimensional Poincaré dynamical symmetry. The additional symmetries are time reparametrization, $`\stackrel{~}{x}=x`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{cosh}\omega }+\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{\tau },x)\mathrm{tanh}\omega ,\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{\tau },x)}{\mathrm{cosh}\omega }\tau \mathrm{tanh}\omega ,\end{array}$$
(1.5)
and space reparametrization, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}=x\widehat{\gamma }\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau ,\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{tanh}\gamma +\widehat{\gamma }\left(\widehat{\gamma }x\right)\left(\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\gamma }{\mathrm{cos}\gamma }\right),\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau ,\stackrel{~}{x})(\widehat{\gamma }x)\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{cosh}\gamma },\end{array}$$
(1.6)
where $`\gamma =|\stackrel{}{\gamma }|`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }=\stackrel{}{\gamma }/\gamma `$.

The aim of this Note is to derive also the relativistic model of Jackiw and Polychronakos from the same universal model as the non-relativistic Chaplygin system, but using spacelike rather than lightlike projection. First, we provide a similar interpretation of space and time reparametrizations as isometries of an extended space. Next we consider a non-linear Klein-Gordon system and point out that its “Madelung” transcription  yields, for a suitable choice of the potential, the universal model (3.11) and (3.14) respectively, refered to above. This will also demonstrate the field-dependent Poincaré dynamical symmetry of both Chaplygin systems.

The relation to branes is discussed in Section 4.

## 2 Unfolding

Let us start with the time reparametrizations, (1.5). Following the same recipe as in the non-relativistic case, let us add the new coordinate $`\sigma =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\mathrm{\Theta }.`$ Then (1.5) yields $`\stackrel{~}{x}=x`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\mathrm{cosh}\omega \tau \mathrm{sinh}\omega \sigma ,\\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\mathrm{cosh}\omega \sigma \mathrm{sinh}\omega \tau .\end{array}$$
(2.7)
which is in fact a Lorentz transformation in the $`\sigma `$ direction of Minkowski space with metric $`d\tau ^2+dx^2+d\sigma ^2`$. ($`\tau `$ is hence timelike and $`\sigma `$ spacelike). Switching to the light-cone coordinates $`t=\frac{\tau +\sigma }{2},s=\frac{\tau +\sigma }{2},`$ (2.7) becomes furthermore the non-relativistic time dilation $`\stackrel{~}{x}=x`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}=e^\delta t`$, $`\stackrel{~}{s}=e^\delta s`$ .

Space reparametrizations admit a similar interpretation. Applying again our rules, (1.6) unfolds as a rotation $`d+1`$-dimensional space, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}=x\widehat{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}\gamma \sigma \widehat{\gamma }\left(\widehat{\gamma }x\right)(1\mathrm{cos}\gamma ),\\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\mathrm{cos}\gamma \sigma (\widehat{\gamma }x)\mathrm{sin}\gamma .\end{array}$$
(2.8)
Interestingly, a $`(d,1)`$ dimensional Lorentz boost lifted to our extended space, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\sigma `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}=x+\widehat{\beta }\mathrm{sinh}\beta \tau \widehat{\beta }\left(\widehat{\beta }x\right)(1\mathrm{cosh}\beta ),\\ \stackrel{~}{\tau }=\mathrm{cosh}\beta \tau +\left(\widehat{\beta }x\right)\mathrm{sinh}\beta ,\end{array}$$
(2.9)
($`\beta =|\stackrel{}{\beta }|,\widehat{\beta }=\stackrel{}{\beta }/\beta `$) is related to the space reparametrization by the interchange of $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ and by changing $`\gamma `$ into $`i\beta `$. (In the non-relativistic case, “antiboosts” and galilean boosts are related interchanging the light-cone coordinates $`s`$ and $`t`$ ).

## 3 Dynamics

Let us consider a Klein-Gordon field $`\psi `$ on $`(d+1,1)`$-dimensional Minkowski space,

$$_\mu ^\mu \psi =2\frac{d\stackrel{~}{V}}{d\psi ^{}}$$
(3.10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}=\stackrel{~}{V}(|\psi |^2)`$ is some potential. Now, in analogy with the well-known hydrodynamical transcription of non-relativistic quantum mechanics due to Madelung , we write $`\psi =\sqrt{\varrho }e^{i\theta }`$ to get

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_\mu \left(\varrho ^\mu \theta \right)=0,\\ \frac{1}{2}_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta =\frac{\delta V}{\delta \varrho }\end{array}$$
(3.11)
where $`\delta V/\delta \varrho `$ is the variational derivative, and

$$V=\stackrel{~}{V}+\frac{1}{8}\frac{_\mu \varrho ^\mu \varrho }{\varrho }$$
(3.12)
is an effective potential involving the original one, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, plus a “quantum” contribution. If we chose, following Bazeia and Jackiw , $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ so that it cancels the second term, $`\stackrel{~}{V}=V_\mu \varrho ^\mu \varrho /8\varrho `$, (3.11) reduces precisely to (3.11). Similarly, the action from which the non-linear Klein-Gordon equation (3.10) is derived,

$$d^{d+2}x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \psi ^\mu \psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{V}\right\}$$
(3.13)
is converted under the Madelung transcription into

$$d^{d+2}x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\varrho _\mu \theta ^\mu \theta V\right\}$$
(3.14)
with $`V`$ the effective potential (3.12). The Euler-Lagrange equations are precisely (3.11). This provides a physical interpretation of the “lifted system” (3.11)–(3.14).

A word of caution, however: The upper equation in (3.11) can be viewed as a continuity equation not for $`\varrho `$ but for $`(i/2)(\psi ^{}_\tau \psi \psi _\tau \psi ^{})=\varrho ^\tau \theta `$ which, as it is well-known , not a positive definite expression. Thus, it can not be viewed as “particle density”, only, in the best case, a “charge density”. (This same interpretational problem concerns the relativistic system of Jackiw and Polychronakos (1.3) and (1.4).)

We now derive the relativistic model using instead spacelike projection. Let us hence consider the relativistic coordinates $`x,\tau ,\sigma `$ on Minkowski space. Then, generalizing the rules in  to the relativistic context, we define the fields $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\rho `$ by the conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta (x,\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau ))=0,\\ \rho (x,\tau )=\varrho (x,\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau ))_\sigma \theta (x,\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau ).\end{array}$$
(3.15)
The first here is an implicite equation for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, viewed as a field on ordinary space-time; once this latter has been determined, it can be used to define the projected field $`\rho `$. It is important to observe that this procedure is only consistent with the potential $`1/\varrho `$ . Then the “universal” equations of motion (3.11) project, for $`V1/\varrho `$ only , to the manifestly $`(d,1)`$-dimensional Poincaré invariant expressions

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_\tau (\rho ^\tau \mathrm{\Theta })+\stackrel{}{}\left(\rho \stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)=0,\\ (_\tau \mathrm{\Theta })^2+(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta })^2+1=\frac{2\lambda }{\rho ^2}.\end{array}$$
(3.16)
What is the physical interpretation of these equations ? In analogy with the non-relativistic case, we would like to interpret the upper equation here as a continuity equation, i. e., a conservation equation $`_\alpha J^\alpha =0`$ for the non-relativistic current

$$J^\tau =\rho ^\tau \mathrm{\Theta },\stackrel{}{J}=\frac{\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }}{^\tau \mathrm{\Theta }}.$$
(3.17)
Now the point is that, trading $`\rho `$ for

$$\begin{array}{c}RJ^\tau =\varrho (x,\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau ))^\tau \theta (x,\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau ))\\ =\varrho (x,\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau ))_\sigma \theta (x,\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau ))^\tau \mathrm{\Theta },\end{array}$$
(3.18)
(3.16) become precisely the equations of Jackiw and Polychronakos in (1.4) with $`a=\sqrt{2\lambda }`$. In the same spirit, the universal action (3.14) becomes, under (3.15),

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\rho \left((_\tau \mathrm{\Theta })^2(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta })^21\right)\frac{\lambda }{\rho }.$$
(3.19)
Eliminating $`\rho `$ in favor of $`R`$ this nice quadratic expression becomes, furthermore, the square-root action (1.3).

In conclusion, we have derived the relativistic system of Jackiw and Polychronakos,  by spacelike projection from our universal model (3.11). (Remember that in the non-relativistic case one had to use lightlike projection). Beyond its esthetical value, our construction has the advantage that the $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensional dynamical Poincaré symmetry becomes a simple consequence of the manifest geometric Poincaré invariance of the universal model. This can be shown along the same lines as in .

A further advantage is that the conserved quantity associated to an infinitesimal Poincaré transformation $`(X^\mu )`$ of $`M`$ is readily found using the \[symmetric\] energy-momentum tensor of (3.14) constructed in ,

$$\begin{array}{c}Q=\frac{T_\mu ^\tau X^\mu }{_\sigma \theta }d^dx,\\ T_{\mu \nu }=\varrho _\mu \theta _\nu \theta +g_{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho _\omega \theta ^\omega \theta +V(\varrho )\right).\end{array}$$
(3.20)
These formulae yield

$$\begin{array}{cc}=\frac{1}{2}\rho \left[(_\tau \mathrm{\Theta })^2+(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta })^2+1\right]+\frac{\lambda }{\rho },& \text{energy}\\ 𝒫_i=\rho _i\mathrm{\Theta }_\tau \mathrm{\Theta },& \text{momentum}\\ 𝒩=\rho _\tau \mathrm{\Theta },& \text{relat. “number”}\\ 𝒟=\mathrm{\Theta }+𝒩\tau ,& \text{time reparametrization}\\ 𝒢_i=x_i𝒩+\mathrm{\Theta }𝒫_i& \text{space reparametrization}\end{array}$$
(3.21)
which become, inserting $`R`$, exactly the conserved quantities in .

Somewhat paradoxically, both relativistic systems, (1.3) and (3.19), are also Galilei-invariant, simply because the $`(d,1)`$ dimensional Galilei group is a subgroup of the Poincaré group in $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensions. Applying our rules backwards, for a galilean boost we get, e. g., the field-dependent action

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}=x\frac{1}{2}\alpha \tau \frac{1}{2}\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }},\\ \stackrel{~}{\tau }=\left(1+\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2\right)\tau \alpha x+\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }},\\ \mathrm{\Theta }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(1+\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2\right)+\alpha x\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2\tau +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(1+\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2\right).\end{array}$$
(3.22)
## 4 Relation to d-branes

Our framework here is closely related to the so-called non-parametric representation of $`d`$ branes . Our “vertical” variable $`\sigma `$ (alias the field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$) is in fact the $`z`$ coordinate of the $`d`$-brane propagating in $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensional Minkowski space, and our “lifted” field $`\theta `$ is (minus) their $`u`$, the function whose level sets describe the $`d`$-brane as $`\theta (x,\tau ,z(x,\tau ))=0`$, — which is our first condition in (3.15).

In terms of $`\theta `$, the motion of the $`d`$-brane is governed by the action

$$\sqrt{_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta }d^{d+2}x,$$
(4.23)
whose equations of motion read

$$_\mu \left(\frac{^\mu \theta }{\sqrt{_\nu \theta ^\nu \theta }}\right)=0.$$
(4.24)
The integrand here is in fact the “Nambu” world volume of the $`d`$-brane ,

$$\sqrt{_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta }=\sqrt{det(G_{\alpha \beta })},G_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X_\mu .$$
(4.25)
The point is that one can get rid of the square root, just like for a free relativistic particle. (This latter can be described either by the usual invariant length action $`m{\displaystyle \sqrt{\dot{x}^2}𝑑\tau }`$, or by a quadratic action plus a constraint, when an auxiliary variable is added ). Let us hence enlarge our pure scalar theory involving $`\theta `$ alone by introducing an auxiliary field we call $`\rho `$. Then (4.24) is readily seen to imply the first equation in (3.11); but both equations (3.11) derive from our quadratic Lagrangian (3.14). Conversely, inserting $`\rho `$ into our action and equations of motion, (4.23) and (4.24) are recovered. (The two-dimensional analog is string theory, where the quadratic Polyakov action can be used instead of the Nambu-Goto expression ).

## 5 Discussion

While the Lagrangian (1.3) is first-order in the time derivative and the Hamiltonian $`\sqrt{R^2+a^2}\sqrt{\left(\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)^2+1}`$ contains ugly square roots, our expressions are quadratic, as in ordinary relativistic scalar field theory. The two expressions are equivalent; our quadratic expression could have some advantage when the quantization of the system is considered. Let us emphasise that this approach not only considerably simplifies the proof of the dynamical Poincaré symmetry, but also explains its rather mysterious origin. The possibility of having differently-looking but still equivalent systems corresponds to the freedom of chosing the kinetic term .

The strange fact recognized by Jackiw and Polychronakos is that the the non-relativistic Chaplygin gas is simultaneously the $`c\mathrm{}`$ limit, and also equivalent to their relativistic model . This can also be seen in our framework : deforming the space-like fibration into lightlike amounts, on the one hand, to taking the non-relativistic limit . On the other hand, (3.15) is merely the definition of the projected fields and does not impose any restriction. The two systems are hence equivalent through the universal model.

Let us mention, in conclusion, that our formalism can also be used to study the conformal properties of gas dynamics . For the adiabatic potential $`V(\varrho )\varrho ^n`$, the action (3.14) is readily seen to be invariant w. r. t. the $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensional conformal group $`\mathrm{O}(d+1,2)`$ if and only if the polytropic exponent is

$$n=1+\frac{2}{d}.$$
(5.26)
(This can also be seen from the trace condition $`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$ of the energy-momentum tensor (3.20)).

In the free case, $`\mathrm{O}(d+1,2)`$ is a \[field-dependent\] symmetry also for the reduced system . For $`V0`$, however, the potential is only consistent with equivariance,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_\sigma \varrho =0& & \varrho =\rho (x,\tau ),\\ _\sigma \theta =1& & \theta =\mathrm{\Theta }(x,\tau )+\sigma ,\end{array}$$
(5.27)
rather than with the generalized condition (3.15). Equivariance reduces, however, the $`(d+1,1)`$ dimensional conformal symmetry to its mere \[(d,1)-Poincaré\]$`\times 𝐑`$ subgroup, the $`𝐑`$ representing the vertical translations, whose associated conserved quantity is the “number” $`N`$. Let us recall that in the non-relativistic case the corresponding subgroup is the $`(d,1)`$ dimensional Schrödinger group .

Acknowledgements. We are indebted to Professors C. Duval, G. Gibbons, R. Jackiw and J.-W. van Holten for their interest, and to J. Hoppe for discussions.


text:
# 1 CLEO experiment and CLEO III upgrade

## 1 CLEO experiment and CLEO III upgrade

CLEO detector has been running at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring(CESR) for 20 years, studies the B physics at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) energy region. The CLEO II and II.V configurations are described in detail elsewhere . It has one of the largest data sample collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) region. The integrated luminosity is 13.5 $`fb^1`$, among them 9.1 $`fb^1`$ taken at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance, which corresponds to about 9.7 $`\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, and 4.4 $`fb^1`$ at the energies just below the $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold in order to study backgrounds from light quark production(refered to as continuum events). The results reviewed in this paper are based on this full data sample.

Recently the CESR and CLEO detector have been upgraded. The goal is to get to a luminosity of $`1.62.2\times 10^{33}cm^2s^1`$, so as to collect 20-30 $`fb^1`$ data per year. The new CLEO III detector consists of a new four layer double sided silicon drift detector, a new 47 layer drift chamber, and a completely new barrel Ring Imaging CHernkov (RICH) detector. The upgraded detector was completed in April of 2000 and started taking physics data in July of 2000.

CLEO analysis covers wide topics in B meson decay. In this talk, we will focus on the CLEO measurements of the CKM matrix elements and CP violation.

## 2 The CKM matrix and Unitary Triangle

In the Standard Model, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix(CKM)  describes the mixing between the 3 quark generations. The determination of all of these parameters is required to fully define the Standard Model and may also reveal an underlying structure that will point to new physics. In the framework of the Standard Model the CKM matrix must be unitary, which gives rise to the following realtionships between the matrix elements:

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0,$$
(1)
$$V_{ub}V_{us}^{}+V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}+V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}=0,$$
(2)
$$V_{us}V_{ud}^{}+V_{cs}V_{cd}^{}+V_{ts}V_{td}^{}=0,$$
(3)
Chau, Keung  and Bjorken have noted that the first equation can be visualized as a triangle in the complex plane with vertices at (0,0), (0,1) and ($`\rho ,\eta `$). Measurements of the magnitudes of the CKM elements determine the lengths of the sides of the triangle, while measurements of the CP asymmetries deterimine the interior angles of the triangle. Fig. 1 shows the CKM triangle and the corresponding decay channels by which we can measure the CKM elements. The red decay modes will be discussed in this talk.

## 3 $`|V_{cb}|`$ from $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$

The decay $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ supplies us with a good channel to measure the CKM element $`|V_{cb}|`$, which is vital to our understanding of the unitary triangle as it sets the scale of the entire triangle. The partial width of $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ is proportional to $`|V_{cb}|^2`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dw}=\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi ^3}|V_{cb}|^2\left[(w)\right]^2𝒢(w),,$$
(4)
where: $`w=v_Bv_D^{}`$ is the relativistic $`\gamma `$ of $`D^{}`$ in the B rest frame; $`𝒢(w)`$ contains kinematic factors and is known by theory; $`(w)`$ is the form factor describing $`BD^{}`$ transition.

At zero recoil of $`D^{}`$ (i.e. $`w=1`$), $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dw}`$($`(1)|V_{cb}|`$$`)^2`$, $`(1)`$ can be calculated by theory like HQET(Heavy Quark Effective Theory). This point is where our analysis technique comes from.

### 3.1 The Analysis Technique

The technique is to measure $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/dw`$ and extrapolate to $`w=1`$ to extract $`(1)|V_{cb}|`$. For $`D^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$, $`w`$ runs from 1 to 1.5. We divide it into ten bins. The signal event is full reconstructed as : $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$, $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$. The $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ yield in each $`w`$ bin is extracted from a likelihood fit to the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{BD^{}\mathrm{}}`$ distribution (the angle between the $`D^{}\mathrm{}`$ combination and $`B`$). The reason why we fit to this angular distribution is that it can well distinguish between $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+X\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ background events, which include events like $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi \mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$. Because these background events don’t have zero missing mass as the signal decay, so their $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{BD^{}\mathrm{}}`$ distribution will be much broader than the signal $`\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay. Fig. 2 is a representative fit plot obtained in the first $`w`$ bin.

We then do a $`\chi ^2`$ fit on the overall $`w`$ distribution taking into account backgrounds, reconstruction efficiency and the $`w`$ resolution. We use the dispersion relations  to constrain the shapes of the form factor $`(w)`$ and fit for $`(1)|V_{cb}|`$ and a “slope”, $`\rho ^2`$ $`(atw=1)`$, see fig. 3.

This analysis is systematic limited, the major source of uncertainty for the analysis is the efficiency for reconstructing the slow $`\pi `$ from $`D^{}`$ decay( with systematic error of 3.1%), which is due to the uncertainties in the amount of material in the inner detector(2.3%) and the drift chamber hit efficiency(0.8%).

### 3.2 Preliminary results

We find

$`(1)|V_{cb}|=(42.4\pm 1.8\pm 1.9)\times 10^3`$,

$`(\overline{B}^0D^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })=(5.66\pm 0.29\pm 0.33)\%`$,

Using $`(1)=0.913\pm 0.042\text{[7]},`$ we calculate

$`|V_{cb}|=(46.4\pm 2.0\pm 2.1\pm 2.1)\times 10^3`$,

This result is consistent with our previous measurements, but somewhat higher. The analysis benefits from small backgrounds and good resolution in $`w`$. A measurement using $`D^0\mathrm{}\nu `$ will come soon. Combining these two channels will give the best single measurement of $`|V_{cb}|`$ using the exclusive technique.

## 4 Charmless Hadronic Two-Body B Decays

The rare B decays can occur through two main types of diagrams: $`bu`$ spectator diagrams (suppressed by $`V_{ub}`$) and $`bs`$ penguin diagrams (suppressed by loops). Usually for one decay mode, there is more than one contributing diagrams, the interference between them gives rise to the CP violation in the B sector .

### 4.1 Analysis Technique

In CLEO experiment, candidates for B meson decays are distinguished from continuum background using the difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, between the total energy of the two tracks and the beam energy, and the beam-constrained mass, $`m_B`$. The background for rare B decays arises entirely from the continuum where the two-jet structure of the events can produce high momentum, back-to-back tracks. We suppress the continuum background via event shape because the signal events are spherical while the continuum backgrounds are jetty. Further discrimination between isotropic signal and rather jetty continuum events is provided by a Fisher discriminant technique as described in detail in Ref. , which is a linear combination of experimental observables.

We then perform an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit. In this fit the signal and background distributions are defined by probability density functions derived from Monte Carlo studies. The fit determines the relative contributions of the final track combinations to the signal and background. At high momentum, it’s hard to seperate charged K from charged $`\pi `$,so we simultaneously fit for both components, $`e.g.BK^\pm \pi ^{}/\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}`$. Fig. 4 shows the fitting plots for the decay modes $`BK^\pm \pi ^{}/\pi ^\pm \pi ^{}`$. From the contour plot(fig. 4(a)), we can see the best fit value(cross) is 4 or 5 $`\sigma `$ away from the point $`N_{\pi \pi }`$ = $`N_{K\pi }`$ = 0. The histograms in fig. 4 are projections of the fitting result onto the variables of energy difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E, and beam constrained mass, M.

Following I will briefly review the CLEO results for the different decay modes of the charmless hadronic B decays.

### 4.2 Two body B decays to Kaons and Pions: $`BK\pi `$, $`\pi \pi `$

Ratios of various $`BK\pi `$ branching fractions were shown  to depend explicitly on $`\gamma Arg(V_{ub}^{})`$ with relatively modest model dependence. Within a factorization model,braching fractions of a large number of rare B decays can be parametrized by a small number of independent physical quantities, including $`\gamma `$, which can then be extracted through a global fit  to existing data. Finally, measurement of the time-dependent CP-violation asymmetry in the decay $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ can be used to determine the sum of $`\gamma `$ and the phase $`\beta Arg(V_{td}^{})`$.

Table 1 summarizes the CLEO results on the $`BK\pi `$, $`\pi \pi `$ modes. We finally observed all four $`K\pi `$ modes. For some decay modes, the significance of the signal is not enough to claim an observation of the decay modes, so we just come up with upper limits. $`B\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ is a new result, while the other results are also improved to the previous ones . These results can be used to set new bound on the angle $`\gamma `$ of the unitary triangle . They also indicate that the gluonic penguin diagram contribution to the rare B decays is large.

### 4.3 Modes with $`\eta ^{}`$ and $`\eta `$

An earlier search  found a large rate for the decay $`B\eta ^{}K`$, and set upper limits on other decays to two-body final states containing $`\eta ^{}`$ or $`\eta `$ mesons. In table 2, we summarize the latest CLEO measurements on these decay modes, we only observe signals on these four modes shown in table 2, for other modes, there is just upper limits . These results confirmed the previous observations that the $`\eta ^{}K`$ signal is larger than $`\eta K`$. To explain this phenomenon, a substantial intrinsic charm component of the $`\eta ^{}`$ has been proposed , but the new CLEO results on $`B\eta _cK`$ :

BR($`B^0\eta _cK^0)=(1.09_{0.42}^{+0.55}\pm 0.12\pm 0.31)\times 10^3`$,

BR($`B^+\eta _cK^+)=(0.69_{0.21}^{+0.26}\pm 0.08\pm 0.20)\times 10^3`$

shows no enhancement compared to the $`BJ/\psi K`$ decay.

### 4.4 B meson decays to Pseudoscalar-Vector final states

CLEO recently made the first observation of the decays $`B^{}\pi ^{}\rho ^0`$, $`B^{}\pi ^{}\omega `$ and $`B^0\pi ^\pm \rho ^{}`$(charge-conjugate modes are implied) , as summerized in table 3. All of these $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$S=0 decay modes are expected to be dominated by hadronic $`bu`$ transitions. We see no significant yields in any of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$S=1 transitions. This is in contrast to the corresponding charmless hadronic B decays to two pseudo-scalar mesons($`BPP`$) $`BK\pi `$,$`\pi \pi `$,where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$S=1 transitions clearly dominate. It indicates that gluonic penguin decays play less of a role in $`BPV`$ decays than in $`BPP`$ decays. This is consistent with theoretical predictions  that uses factorization which predicts destructive(constructive) interference between penguin operators of opposite chirality for $`BK\rho `$($`BK\pi `$), leading to a rather small(large) penguin contribution in these decays.

### 4.5 Observation of $`B\varphi K`$ \- Preliminary

The decay $`bs\gamma `$ produced by the gluonic penguin can be uniquely tagged when the gluon splits into an $`s\overline{s}`$ pair as no other b decay can produce this final state. The mode $`B\varphi K`$ is one such tag of the gluonic penguin and its rate is sensitive to $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in the CKM matrix. CLEO recently measured $`BR(B^{}\varphi K^{})=(6.4_{2.12.0}^{+2.5+0.5})\times 10^6`$ and $`BR(B^0\varphi K^0)=(5.9_{2.90.9}^{+4.0+1.1})\times 10^6`$. Assuming that the branching ratio for these two processes should be equal, we obtain

$`BR(B\varphi K)=(6.2_{1.81.7}^{+2.0+0.7})\times 10^6`$

The first set of errors is statistical, whereas the second set is systematic, dominated by systematics of the unbinned maximum likelihood fit. While statistical significance of the signal in the $`B^{}\varphi K^{}`$ mode is 4.4 $`\sigma `$, the statistical significance of the $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ signal is only 2.8$`\sigma `$. Thus, without any theoretical bias, we cannot claim the signal in the $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ mode with high confidence and therefore we calculate the upper limit of $`<1.2\times 10^5`$ at 90% C.L. The signal significance in the combined charged and neutral kaon data is well above 5 standard deviations.

### 4.6 CP Asymmetry Measurements

Direct CP asymmetry can result from interference of two amplitudes with different strong and weak phases. The asymmetry,$`𝒜_{CP}`$ is defined by the difference between the rates for $`\overline{B}f`$ and $`B\overline{f}`$ as

$$𝒜_{CP}\frac{(\overline{B}f)(B\overline{f})}{(\overline{B}f)+(B\overline{f})},$$
(5)
Precise predictions for $`𝒜_{CP}`$ are not feasible at present as both the absolute value and the strong interaction phases of the contributing amplitudes are not calculable. However,numerical estimates can be made under well-defined model assumptions and the dependence on both model parameters and CKM parameters can be probed.Recent calculations of CP asymmetries under the assumption of factorization have been published by Ali et al. .

In table 4, we present results  of searches for CP violation in decays of B mesons to the three $`K\pi `$ modes,$`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$, $`K^\pm \pi ^0`$,$`K^0\pi ^\pm `$, the mode $`K^\pm \eta ^{}`$, and the vector-pseudoscalar mode $`\omega \pi ^\pm `$. These decay modes are selected because they have well measured branching ratios and significant signal yields in our data sample . In the data analysis, these decays are self-tagging, the flavor of the parent $`b`$ or $`\overline{b}`$ quark is tagged simply by the sign of the high momentum charged hadron. The asymmetry,$`𝒜_{CP}`$, is obtained from the maximum likelihood fit as a free parameter.

We see no evidence for CP violation in the five modes and set 90% CL intervals that reduce the possible range of $`𝒜_{CP}`$ by as much as a factor of four. While the sensitivity is not yet sufficient to probe the rather small $`𝒜_{CP}`$ values predicted by factorization models, extremely large $`𝒜_{CP}`$ values that might arise if large strong phase differences were available from final state interactions are firmly ruled out. For the cases of $`K\pi `$ and $`\eta ^{}K`$, we can exclude $`|𝒜_{CP}|`$ greater than 0.30 and 0.23 at 90% CL respectively.

## 5 Conclusions

Besides the results discussed above, CLEO has also many other physics results for B decay at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S). However, the unambiguous observation of the gluonic penguin and the best single measure of $`|V_{cb}|`$ are undoubtedly the highlights in the last year. As the CLEO III starts data taking and the asymmetric B factories gets their first results, we can all look forward to much more exciting physics from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) in the future.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Alice Bean, Karl Ecklund and the other CLEO and Kansas colleagues for the helpful discussions in preparing for the talk.


text:
# Motional Casimir force

## Introduction

The vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field manifest themselves through macroscopic Casimir forces . These forces result from the radiation pressure exerted upon boundaries by the scattered fluctuations which depends upon the instantaneous and local value of the stress tensor. Consequently, they are fluctuating quantities . More precisely, the forces exerted upon the two mirrors of a Fabry-Perot cavity have to be considered as random variables. In the present paper, we compute the associated correlation functions. For the sake of simplicity, we study the situation where two point like mirrors are placed in the vacuum state of a scalar field in a two-dimensional (2D) spacetime.

As illustrated by the Langevin theory of Brownian motion , any fluctuating force has a long term cumulative effect. This cumulative force can be derived from linear response theory . The fluctuations of Casimir forces thus imply that mirrors moving in the vacuum must experience systematic forces. In a previous paper , we have computed such a motional force for a single mirror in the vacuum state (of a scalar field in a 2D spacetime). At the limit of perfect reflectivity, we found a dissipative force proportional to the third time derivative of the mirror’s position $`q`$

$$F\left(t\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}q^{\prime \prime \prime }\left(t\right)}{6\pi c^2}$$
(1)
which corresponds to a linear susceptibility at the frequency $`\omega `$

$$\chi [\omega ]=\frac{i\mathrm{}\omega ^3}{6\pi c^2}$$
(2)
(from now on, we use natural units where $`c=1`$; however, we keep $`\mathrm{}`$ as a scale for vacuum fluctuations). This damping force for a single moving mirror is connected to the Casimir force (mean force between two mirrors at rest) since both result from a modification of the vacuum stress tensor . Actually, expression (1a) identifies with the linear approximation of the force computed using the techniques of quantum field theory . As required by Lorentz invariance of the vacuum state , the damping force vanishes for a motion with a uniform velocity. In the case of a uniform acceleration, the mirror is submitted to the same fluctuating field as if it were at rest in a thermal field  so that it experiences also a zero motional force.

In the present paper, we compute the explicit expressions of the forces exerted upon one mirror due either to its own motion (in presence of the second mirror) or to the motion of the other. These expressions, obtained from linear response theory, are valid in a first order expansion in the mirrors’ displacement without restriction on the motion’s frequency.

A problem in any calculation of vacuum induced effects is to dispose of the divergences associated with the infiniteness of the total vacuum energy. This problem can be solved by assuming that the boundaries are transparent at high frequencies. Using a scattering approach where the mirrors are described by transmittivity and reflectivity functions obeying unitarity, causality and high frequency transparency conditions, one obtains a regular expression for the mean force between two mirrors . The same approach also provides directly a causal motional force in the single mirror problem whereas the non causal expression (1) is recovered as an asymptotic limit for a perfectly reflecting mirror .

In the present paper, we use this approach to study the motional forces in the two mirrors problem. First, we compute the correlation functions characterizing the fluctuating Casimir forces exerted upon the two motionless mirrors. Then, we use the linear response theory to derive the susceptibility functions associated with the motional forces. In order to obtain these functions, we use some analytic properties of the correlation functions which are analysed in Appendix A. We check that our results are consistent with already known limiting cases: the static Casimir force  (limit of a null frequency), the one mirror problem  (limit where one mirror is transparent) and the limit of perfect reflection .

The expressions obtained for perfectly reflecting mirrors correspond to a damping force analogous to equation (1) with two differences. First, the response is delayed because of the time of flight from one mirror to the other. Second, the motional modification of the vacuum fields is reflected back by the mirrors. The resulting interference between the different numbers of cavity roundtrips gives rise to a divergence of the susceptibility functions. For partially transmitting mirrors, these functions are regular and describe a resonant enhancement of the motional Casimir force, which may be large when the Fabry-Perot cavity has a high finesse . A resonance approximation is used to evaluate the susceptibility functions in this case.

It is known that mirrors moving with a non uniform velocity squeeze the vacuum fields . This requires that energy and impulsion be exchanged between the mirrors and the fields. The motional Casimir forces thus appear as a mechanical consequence of this squeezing effect. In Appendix B, we discuss the motional modifications of the field scattering by the mirrors and we write an effective Hamiltonian describing the squeezing effect as well as the mechanical forces upon the mirrors.

## Notations

Any function $`f(t)`$ defined in the time domain and its Fourier transform $`f[\omega ]`$ are supposed to be related through ***The notation used in the original paper for Fourier transforms has been changed to a more convenient one.

$$f(t)=\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }f[\omega ]e^{i\omega t}$$
(3)
In the following, some functions of time will be expressed as integrals over two frequencies, with the notation

$$f(t)=\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }e^{i\omega ti\omega ^{}t}f[\omega ,\omega ^{}]$$
(4)
Comparing with (2a), one gets the equivalent expression

$$f[\omega ]=\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }f[\omega \omega ^{},\omega ^{}]$$
(5)
In a 2D spacetime (time coordinate $`t`$, space coordinate $`x`$), a free scalar field is the sum of two counterpropagating components $`\phi (tx)+\psi (t+x)`$ which will be written as the two components of a column matrix

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_x(t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi (tx)\\ \psi (t+x)\end{array}\right)`$

The Fourier transform $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ]`$ of the column $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x(t)`$ is related to the standard annihilation and creation operators corresponding to the two propagation directions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ]=\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi [\omega ]e^{i\omega x}\\ \psi [\omega ]e^{i\omega x}\end{array}\right)=e^{i\eta \omega x}\mathrm{\Phi }[\omega ]`$
$`\phi [\omega ]=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2|\omega |}}}\left(\theta (\omega )a_\omega +\theta (\omega )a_\omega ^{}\right)\psi [\omega ]=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2|\omega |}}}\left(\theta (\omega )b_\omega +\theta (\omega )b_\omega ^{}\right)`$
where the abbreviated notation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ stands for the values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ evaluated at $`x=0`$ and

$`\eta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$

The energy and impulsion densities correspond to two counterpropagating energy fluxes

$`e_x(t)=\phi ^{}(tx)^2+\psi ^{}(t+x)^2p_x(t)=\phi ^{}(tx)^2\psi ^{}(t+x)^2`$

They may be written as integrals over two frequencies (see eqs 2) with

$`e_x[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=i\omega i\omega ^{}Tr\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]e_x[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=i\omega i\omega ^{}Tr\left[\eta \mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]`$

$`Tr`$ stands for the trace operation and $`X^\mathrm{T}`$ for the transposed of $`X`$. So, their mean values in a quantum state are functions of the covariance matrix

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_x^{}[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}=e^{i\eta \omega x}\mathrm{\Phi }[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}e^{i\eta \omega ^{}x^{}}`$

For a stationary state such as the vacuum, the covariance matrix depends only upon one frequency parameter

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}=2\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{})c[\omega ]$$
(7)
It will be useful to write it in terms of the anticommutators which characterize the field states and of the commutators which do not depend upon the states

$`c[\omega ]=c_+[\omega ]+c_{}[\omega ]`$ ()
$`c_+[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c[\omega ]+c[\omega ]^\mathrm{T}}{2}}=c_+[\omega ]^\mathrm{T}c_{}[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{c[\omega ]c[\omega ]^\mathrm{T}}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{I\mathrm{}}{4\omega }}`$ (8)
$`I`$ is the unit matrix. The vacuum state corresponds to

$$c[\omega ]=I\theta (\omega )\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\omega }c_+[\omega ]=I\epsilon (\omega )\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\omega }\epsilon (\omega )=\theta (\omega )\theta (\omega )$$
(9)
## Scattering upon motionless mirrors

The scattering of the field upon a partially transmitting mirror at rest at $`q`$ is described by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]=e^{i\eta \omega q}S[\omega ]e^{i\eta \omega q}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]S[\omega ]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}s[\omega ]& r[\omega ]\\ r[\omega ]& s[\omega ]\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
The $`S`$matrix is supposed to be real in the temporal domain, causal and unitary

$`S[\omega ]=S[\omega ]^{}`$ ()
$`S[\omega ]\mathrm{is}\mathrm{analytic}(\mathrm{and}\mathrm{regular})\mathrm{for}Im\omega >0`$ ()
$`S[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}=1`$ ()
Finally, the mirror is supposed to be transparent at high frequencies

$$S[\omega ]I\mathrm{for}\omega \mathrm{}$$
(10)
This assumption will allow us to regularize the ultraviolet divergences associated with the infiniteness of the vacuum energy . A mirror perfectly reflecting ($`s=0`$ and $`r=1`$) at all frequencies does not obey this condition and it will be better to consider the perfect mirror as the limit of a model obeying the transparency condition (for example a mirror perfectly reflecting at frequencies below a reflection cutoff).

We study now the situation where two mirrors are placed at rest in the vacuum at positions $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ (see Figure 1).

As the final results will depend only on the distance $`q=q_2q_1`$ between the two mirrors, we consider from now on

$$q_2=\frac{q}{2}q_1=\frac{q}{2}$$
(11)
The scattering of the field by the mirrors (see Figure 1) is described by two scattering matrices given by equations (5)

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_1[\omega ]& r_1[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}\\ r_1[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}& s_1[\omega ]\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_2[\omega ]& r_2[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}\\ r_2[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}& s_2[\omega ]\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$
As usual in the computation of a Fabry Perot cavity, one can solve these equations to express the outcoming and the intracavity fields in terms of the input ones

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]=S[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]=R[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]`$

The global scattering matrix $`S[\omega ]`$ and the resonance matrix $`R[\omega ]`$ are given by (all the reflectivities and transmittivities are evaluated at frequency $`\omega `$)

$`S[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_1s_2& r_2e^{i\omega q}+d_2r_1e^{i\omega q}\\ r_1e^{i\omega q}+d_1r_2e^{i\omega q}& s_1s_2\end{array}\right)`$ ()
$`R[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_1& s_2r_1e^{i\omega q}\\ s_1r_2e^{i\omega q}& s_2\end{array}\right)`$ ()
$`d_1[\omega ]=s_1[\omega ]^2r_1[\omega ]^2d_2[\omega ]=s_2[\omega ]^2r_2[\omega ]^2`$ (18)
$`d[\omega ]=1r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}r[\omega ]=r_1[\omega ]r_2[\omega ]`$ (19)
One checks from conditions (6) that the matrices $`S`$ and $`R`$ are real in the time domain, that they are retarded response functions, that the matrix $`S`$ is unitary and that the Fabry-Perot is transparent at the high frequency limit

$`S[\omega ]=S[\omega ]^{}R[\omega ]=R[\omega ]^{}`$ ()
$`S[\omega ]\mathrm{and}R[\omega ]\mathrm{are}\mathrm{analytic}(\mathrm{and}\mathrm{regular})\mathrm{for}Im\omega >0`$ ()
$`S[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}=1`$ ()
$`S[\omega ]IR[\omega ]\mathrm{I}\mathrm{for}\omega \mathrm{}`$ ()
## Casimir force between two motionless mirrors

As usual in a local formulation of the Casimir effect , the forces $`F_1(t)`$ and $`F_2(t)`$ acting upon the two mirrors can be deduced from the stress tensor evaluated at both sides of the mirrors

$`F_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{\mathrm{in}}^{}(tq_1)^2\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}^{}(tq_1)^2+\psi _{\mathrm{out}}^{}(t+q_1)^2\psi _{\mathrm{cav}}^{}(t+q_1)^2`$
$`F_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}^{}(tq_2)^2\phi _{\mathrm{out}}^{}(tq_2)^2+\psi _{\mathrm{cav}}^{}(t+q_2)^2\psi _{\mathrm{in}}^{}(t+q_2)^2`$
The forces are quadratic forms of the vacuum fields as the energy or impulsion densities, so that they can be expressed as integrals (2) over two frequencies with (using equation 7)

$`F_1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\omega +\omega ^{})q\right)i\omega i\omega ^{}\left(\phi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\phi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ^{}]\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ^{}]\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\omega +\omega ^{})q\right)i\omega i\omega ^{}\left(\psi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]\psi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ^{}]\psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ^{}]\right)`$
$`F_2[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\omega +\omega ^{})q\right)i\omega i\omega ^{}\left(\psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ^{}]\psi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\psi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ^{}]\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\omega +\omega ^{})q\right)i\omega i\omega ^{}\left(\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ^{}]\phi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]\phi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ^{}]\right)`$
Noting that the matrices

$`P_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \eta }{2}}`$

are the projectors onto the counterpropagating components $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ and using the expressions of the output and cavity fields in terms of the input ones, one obtains

$$F_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=i\omega i\omega ^{}Tr\left[_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_x[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]$$
(20)
with

$`_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _i\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\omega +\omega ^{})q\right)\left(P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]\right)`$ (21)
$`+\epsilon _i\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\omega +\omega ^{})q\right)\left(S[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}P_{\epsilon _i}S[\omega ]R[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]\right)`$
$`\epsilon _1`$ $`=`$ $`1\epsilon _2=1`$ (22)
The two matrices $`_i`$ obey the following properties

$$_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}=_i[\omega ^{},\omega ][\omega ,\omega ^{}]^{}=[\omega ^{},\omega ]$$
(23)
When evaluating the mean forces in the vacuum, one obtains from equations (3,4)

$`F_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=\theta (\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}}2\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{})Tr_i[\omega ,\omega ]`$

Using the unitarity of the $`S`$matrix and the following expression of $`RR^{}`$

$`R[\omega ]R[\omega ]^{}=I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}`$ ()
$`Q[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}r_1r_2e^{2i\omega q}& r_1e^{i\omega q}\\ r_2e^{i\omega q}& r_1r_2e^{2i\omega q}\end{array}\right)`$ ()
one shows that

$`Tr_i[\omega ,\omega ]=\epsilon _iTr\left(IR[\omega ]R[\omega ]^{}\right)=\epsilon _iTr\left(Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}\right)`$

This leads to the known expression for the Casimir force between two partially transmitting mirrors

$$F_i(t)=\epsilon _i_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\mathrm{}\omega \left(\frac{r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}+\frac{r[\omega ]^{}e^{2i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]^{}}\right)$$
(25)
## Force fluctuations

We now compute the correlation functions characterizing the fluctuations of the forces $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ acting upon the two mirrors

$`C_{ij}(t)=F_i(t)F_j(0)F_iF_j`$

Inserting the expressions (11) of the forces in terms of the field operators, it appears that the correlation functions $`C_{ij}`$ are related to fourth order moments or second order moments of annihilation or creation operators. With the help of Wick’s rules, the fourth order moments may be deduced from the second order ones. In simple words, the vacuum fields may be considered as stationary gaussian random variables and higher order statistical quantities can be deduced from the covariance matrix.

Using this method, simple algebraic manipulations lead to an expression of the functions $`C_{ij}`$ as integrals over two frequencies (see equations 2) with

$$C_{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=2\omega ^2\omega ^{2}Tr\left[_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]c_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]_j[\omega ,\omega ^{}]^{}c_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]$$
(26)
This becomes for the vacuum state (see equation 4)

$`C_{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}}\theta (\omega )\theta (\omega ^{})\omega \omega ^{}\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ (27)
$`\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left[_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]_j[\omega ,\omega ^{}]^{}\right]`$ ()
In other words, the noise spectra associated with the fluctuations of the Casimir forces may be written

$$C_{ij}[\omega ]=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\theta (\omega )_0^\omega \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }\omega ^{}(\omega \omega ^{})\gamma _{ij}[\omega ^{},\omega \omega ^{}]$$
(28)
From properties (12), the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ obey

$`\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=\gamma _{ij}[\omega ^{},\omega ]=\gamma _{ji}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]^{}=\gamma _{ji}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$

Equations (16-17) give the correlation functions which characterize the fluctuations of the Casimir forces exerted upon the two mirrors. The explicit evaluation of the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ in terms of the scattering coefficients is given in the Appendix A (see equations 27 and 21).

## Motional Casimir forces

We study now the motional Casimir forces. These forces could be obtained by analysing the modification of the stress tensor associated with the mirror’s motion . At first order in the mirrors’ displacements, they can also be derived from the fluctuations computed for motionless mirrors by using the linear response theory . We have used both methods and checked that they provide the same results, as it is the case in the single mirror problem . Here, we present the linear response technique. The main steps of the other method are given in Appendix B.

The classical motion of the mirrors corresponds to an effective perturbation of the Hamiltonian

$$\delta H(t)=\underset{j}{}F_j(t)\delta q_j(t)$$
(29)
where $`F_j`$ are the force operators exerted upon the two mirrors. The linear response theory provides the mean motional forces associated with this perturbation in terms of susceptibility functions $`\chi _{ij}`$

$$\delta F_i(t)=\underset{j}{}d\tau \chi _{ij}(\tau )\delta q_j(t\tau )$$
(30)
The susceptibility functions $`\chi _{ij}`$ may be deduced from the correlation functions since they are the retarded parts of the mean values of the force commutators $`\xi _{ij}`$

$`\chi _{ij}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2i\theta (t)\xi _{ij}(t)`$ ()
$`\xi _{ij}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[F_i(t),F_j(0)]}{2\mathrm{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_{ij}(t)C_{ji}(t)}{2\mathrm{}}}`$ ()
The motional forces will be conveniently characterized by the susceptibility functions written in the frequency domain (compare with equations 1)

$$\delta F_i[\omega ]=\underset{j}{}\chi _{ij}[\omega ]\delta q_j[\omega ]$$
(31)
In a first step, we compute the force commutators from the correlation functions

$`\xi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{C_{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]C_{ji}[\omega ^{},\omega ]}{2\mathrm{}}}`$

Using the properties (12) and writing the covariances (15) in terms of anticommutators and commutators (see equations 3), one shows that

$`\xi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega ^{}}{2}}Tr\left[_j[\omega ,\omega ^{}]^{}_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\omega c_{+,\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]+_j[\omega ^{},\omega ]^{}_i[\omega ^{},\omega ]\omega ^{}c_{+,\mathrm{in}}[\omega ^{}]\right]`$

In the vacuum state, this becomes (see equations 4 and 16)

$`\xi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega \omega ^{}}{8}}\left(\epsilon (\omega )+\epsilon (\omega ^{})\right)\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$

Writing the Fourier transform of the force commutator as

$`\xi _{ij}[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^\omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}\omega ^{}(\omega \omega ^{})\gamma _{ij}[\omega ^{},\omega \omega ^{}]`$

one obtains the simple following relation with the noise spectrum (17)

$`C_{ij}[\omega ]=2\mathrm{}\theta (\omega )\xi _{ij}[\omega ]`$

The noise spectrum $`C_{ij}`$ contains only positive frequency components, as expected for the zero temperature state. This corresponds to the fact that the vacuum fluctuations can damp the mirrors’ motion but cannot excite it .

In a second step, we deduce the susceptibility functions as the retarded part of the force commutators. This derivation relies upon the analytic properties of the correlation functions and requires a detailed inspection of the expression of the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ in terms of the scattering coefficients. This analysis, presented in Appendix A, shows that $`\xi _{ij}[\omega ]`$ is a sum of terms which are either retarded or advanced functions of $`\omega `$. The susceptibility functions $`\chi _{ij}[\omega ]`$ are obtained by retaining only the retarded terms (see equations 19). One gets them as integrals over two frequencies with

$$\chi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=\frac{i\mathrm{}\omega \omega ^{}}{4}\left(\epsilon (\omega )\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]+\epsilon (\omega ^{})\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ^{},\omega ]\right)$$
(32)
where the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$ are the retarded parts of the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ considered as an analytic function of its second frequency parameter

$`\gamma _{11}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]}{d[\omega ]d[\omega ^{}]}}+\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\beta _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]r_2[\omega ]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}}r_2[\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\omega ^{}q}}{d[\omega ^{}]}}`$ ()
$`+r_1[\omega ^{}]d_1[\omega ]r_2[\omega ]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}}+r_1[\omega ]d_1[\omega ^{}]r_2[\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\omega ^{}q}}{d[\omega ^{}]}}`$
$`+\left(r_1[\omega ]^{}+r_1[\omega ^{}]\right)\left(r_2[\omega ]^{}e^{2i\omega q}+r_2[\omega ^{}]e^{2i\omega ^{}q}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]d[\omega ^{}]}}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ^{}]}}`$
$`\gamma _{21}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\alpha _2[\omega ,\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega ^{}q}}{d[\omega ^{}]}}\left(r_1[\omega ^{}]+r_1[\omega ]^{}\right)\left(r_2[\omega ^{}]+r_2[\omega ]^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega ^{}q}}{d[\omega ^{}]}}`$ ()
$`\alpha _i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`1s_i[\omega ]s_i[\omega ^{}]+r_i[\omega ]r_i[\omega ^{}]`$ ()
$`\beta _i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`1s_i[\omega ]s_i[\omega ^{}]r_i[\omega ]r_i[\omega ^{}]`$ ()
$`\gamma _{22}^R`$ and $`\gamma _{12}^R`$ are obtained by exchanging the roles of the two mirrors. It has to be noted that the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$ are not symmetrical in the exchange of $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ so that the function $`\chi _{ij}[\omega ]`$ is not an integral restricted to the interval $`[0,\omega ]`$, in contrast to the functions $`C_{ij}[\omega ]`$ (see equation 17) or $`\xi _{ij}[\omega ]`$.

Equations (20-21) constitute the main results of this paper. They provide the expressions of the motional Casimir forces (see equations 19 and 2) for two partially reflecting mirrors in a linear approximation in the mirrors’ displacements.

## Consistency with known results

Here, we check that the susceptivity functions (20) are consistent with already known results. This can be done in three limiting cases.

First, considering that the second mirror is transparent at all frequencies ($`r_2=0`$; $`s_2=1`$), one obtains

$$\chi _{11}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=\frac{i\mathrm{}\omega \omega ^{}}{2}\left(\epsilon (\omega )+\epsilon (\omega ^{})\right)\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]$$
(36)
and one recovers the known susceptibility for a single partially transmitting mirror moving in the vacuum

$$\chi _{11}[\omega ]=i\mathrm{}_0^\omega \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }\omega ^{}(\omega \omega ^{})\alpha _1[\omega ^{},\omega \omega ^{}]$$
(37)
Then, the quasistatic susceptibilities can be computed from equation (20)

$`\chi _{ij}[0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\chi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ]}`$
$`\chi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}\omega ^2}{4}}\epsilon (\omega )\left(\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ,\omega ]\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ,\omega ]\right)`$
Using equations (21), one checks that they are consistent with the mean Casimir force (14) between two motionless mirrors

$`\chi _{ij}[0]=2i\mathrm{}\epsilon _i\epsilon _j{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}\omega ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r[\omega ]^{}e^{2i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]^{2}}}\right)=_{q_j}F_i`$

Finally, one can consider the limiting case of perfectly reflecting mirrors ($`r_1=r_2=1`$; $`s_1=s_2=0`$) where the expressions (21) may be simplified to

$`\gamma _{11}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{d[\omega ^{}]}}1\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}1\right)+2`$
$`\gamma _{21}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega ^{}q}}{d[\omega ^{}]}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}}\right)`$
Simple calculations then lead to the following expression of the motional force in the time domain

$`\delta F_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{6\pi }}\left(\delta q_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(t)+\delta q_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(t2q)+\delta q_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(t4q)+\mathrm{}\delta q_2^{\prime \prime \prime }(tq)\delta q_2^{\prime \prime \prime }(t3q)\mathrm{}\right)`$ ()
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\pi }{6q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta q_1^{}(t)+\delta q_1^{}(t2q)+\delta q_1^{}(t4q)+\mathrm{}\delta q_2^{}(tq)\delta q_2^{}(t3q)\mathrm{}\right)`$
It can be checked that this is exactly the linear approximation  of the expression obtained for perfectly reflecting mirrors by Fulling and Davies . The terms proportional to third time derivatives appear as generalizing the damping force (1) for a single perfectly reflecting mirror. Now, the force exerted upon one mirror depends not only on its own motion but also on the motion of the other one. The response is delayed due to the time of flight between the two mirrors: the motional modification of the stress tensor has to propagate from one mirror to the other in order to exert a force on it. Moreover, the modified stress tensor is reflected back by the two mirrors. The other terms, proportional to velocities, are not present in the one mirror problem because of the Lorentz invariance of the vacuum (see the discussion in the introduction). They are associated with the existence of a static Casimir force in the two mirrors problem.

## Resonant enhancement of the motional Casimir force

The expression (23) leads to a divergence of the susceptibility functions when evaluated at the frequencies $`\frac{k\pi }{q}`$ with $`k`$ integer. Indeed, the contributions corresponding to different numbers of roundtrips give rise to a constructive interference at those frequencies. In other words, the Fabry-Perot can be considered as a mechanical resonator with resonance frequencies corresponding to the optical resonance frequencies.

For partially transmitting mirrors, the divergences due to perfect reflection will be regularized. In the last section of this paper, we evaluate the resonance enhancement at the limiting case of a large quality factor.

In this case, the reflection delays are much shorter than a roundtrip time and the reflectivity functions are smoother in the frequency domain than the Airy function describing the cavity modes. Replacing in (21) the denominators by geometrical series, we obtain each quantity $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$ as a sum of components evolving at different frequencies: this expansion is analogous to the one used in the computation of the static Casimir force at the large distance approximation

$`\gamma _{11}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \underset{l,m0}{}}r[\omega ]^lr[\omega ^{}]^me^{2il\omega q+2im\omega ^{}q}`$
$`+\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\beta _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]r_2[\omega ]r_2[\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \underset{l,m1}{}}r[\omega ]^{l1}r[\omega ^{}]^{m1}e^{2il\omega q+2im\omega ^{}q}`$
$`+\left(r_1[\omega ]+r_1[\omega ^{}]\right)r_2[\omega ]{\displaystyle \underset{l1,m0}{}}r[\omega ]^{l1}r[\omega ^{}]^me^{2il\omega q+2im\omega ^{}q}`$
$`+\left(r_1[\omega ]+r_1[\omega ^{}]\right)r_2[\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \underset{l0,m1}{}}r[\omega ]^lr[\omega ^{}]^{m1}e^{2il\omega q+2im\omega ^{}q}`$
$`+r_1[\omega ^{}]d_1[\omega ]r_2[\omega ]{\displaystyle \underset{l1}{}}r[\omega ]^{l1}e^{2il\omega q}`$
$`+r_1[\omega ]d_1[\omega ^{}]r_2[\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \underset{m1}{}}r[\omega ^{}]^{m1}e^{2im\omega ^{}q}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l1}{}}r[\omega ]^le^{2il\omega q}{\displaystyle \underset{m1}{}}r[\omega ^{}]^me^{2im\omega ^{}q}`$
$`\gamma _{21}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\alpha _2[\omega ,\omega ^{}]{\displaystyle \underset{l,m0}{}}r[\omega ]^lr[\omega ^{}]^me^{i\left(2l+1\right)\omega q+i\left(2m+1\right)\omega ^{}q}`$
$`\left(r_1[\omega ^{}]+r_1[\omega ]\right)\left(r_2[\omega ^{}]+r_2[\omega ]\right){\displaystyle \underset{l,m0}{}}r[\omega ]^lr[\omega ^{}]^me^{i\left(2l+1\right)\omega q+i\left(2m+1\right)\omega ^{}q}`$
We will denote $`\mu _{ij}^{(L,M)}`$ the coefficients in this expansion

$`\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \underset{L,M}{}}\mu _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]e^{iL\omega q+iM\omega ^{}q}`$

The coefficients $`\mu _{ij}^{(L,M)}`$ depend only upon the reflectivity functions. Negative values of $`M`$ do not appear in the sum because $`\mu _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ is a retarded function of $`\omega ^{}`$. Only even values of $`L`$ and $`M`$ appear for $`i=j`$ and odd ones for $`ij`$.

Then, the susceptibility functions $`\chi _{ij}[\omega ]`$ will be obtained through an integration (see equations 2)

$`\chi _{ij}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L,M}{}}\chi _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ]`$ ()
$`\chi _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }\chi _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ^{},\omega \omega ^{}]}`$ ()
$`\chi _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{4}}\omega \omega ^{}\left(\epsilon (\omega )\mu _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]e^{iL\omega q+iM\omega ^{}q}+\epsilon (\omega ^{})\mu _{ij}^{(L,M)}[\omega ^{},\omega ]e^{iL\omega ^{}q+iM\omega q}\right)`$ ()
It follows that the integrals $`\chi _{ij}^{(L,M)}`$ with $`LM`$ will contain exponentials with a rapidly varying phase and can be considered as non resonant terms. At the limit of perfect reflection, they provide the terms proportional to the velocities in equations (23) while the resonant terms $`\chi _{ij}^{(L,M)}`$ with $`L=M`$ provide the terms proportional to the third time derivatives.

In order to obtain the behaviour of the susceptibility functions near a resonance at $`\frac{k\pi }{q}`$ with $`k`$ a large integer, we will retain only the terms $`L=M`$ (the first time derivatives have a small contribution to equation 23 compared to the third time derivatives in this case). In this resonance approximation, we obtain

$`\gamma _{11}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \underset{l0}{}}\mu _{11}^{(2l,2l)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]e^{2il(\omega +\omega ^{})q}`$
$`\mu _{11}^{(2l,2l)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=2\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]r[\omega ]^lr[\omega ^{}]^l+\theta _{l1}\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\beta _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]r_2[\omega ]r_2[\omega ^{}]r[\omega ]^{l1}r[\omega ^{}]^{l1}`$
$`\gamma _{21}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \underset{l0}{}}\mu _{21}^{(2l+1,2l+1)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]e^{i(2l+1)(\omega +\omega ^{})q}`$
$`\mu _{21}^{(2l+1,2l+1)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=\alpha _{1[}\omega ,\omega ^{}]\alpha _2[\omega ,\omega ^{}]r[\omega ]^lr[\omega ^{}]^l`$
$`\theta _{l1}=0`$ for $`l=0`$ and $`\theta _{l1}=1`$ for $`l1`$. As these expressions are symmetrical in the exchange of the two parameters $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ (this was not the case for the general expressions 21 of $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$), equations (24) lead to

$`\chi _{ij}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}\chi _{ij}^{(L,L)}[\omega ]`$
$`\chi _{ij}^{(L,L)}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}e^{iL\omega q}{\displaystyle _0^\omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}\omega ^{}(\omega \omega ^{})\mu _{ij}^{(L,L)}[\omega ^{},\omega \omega ^{}]`$
The various terms $`\chi _{ij}^{(L,L)}`$ correspond to a motional force evaluated at a delay time close to a multiple of the time of flight $`q`$ between the two mirrors. For example, the term $`\chi _{ij}^{(0,0)}`$ describes the response of the force $`F_1`$ to the motion $`q_1`$ evaluated at times much shorter than the roundtrip time. As it could be expected, it does not depend upon the presence of the second mirror and is the same as if the mirror 1 were alone (compare $`\mu _{11}^{(0,0)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=2\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ with equation 22). The other contributions to $`\chi _{11}`$ correspond to the modification of the damping force due to the presence of the second mirror. They depend upon the reflectivities of the two mirrors and appear at time delays close to a multiple of the roundtrip time $`2q`$.

The terms $`\chi _{21}^{(L,L)}`$ describe the force exerted upon one mirror when the other one moves. They depend upon the reflectivity of both mirrors and appear at time delays close to an odd multiple of the time of flight $`q`$. The lowest order term has a simple form

$`\mu _{21}^{(1,1)}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\alpha _2[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$

The moving mirror modifies the stress tensor of the vacuum field (modification described by the function $`\alpha _1`$). Then the radiation pressure experienced by the other mirror registers the modification of the stress tensor (detection efficiency described by the function $`\alpha _2`$).

In the limiting case of perfect reflection at all frequencies lower than $`\omega `$, one recovers the terms proportional to the third time derivatives in equations (23). The susceptibility functions diverge in this case but they are regular as soon as the mirrors have a small partial transmission. Indeed, the contributions corresponding to different numbers of roundtrips can be summed up to give in the resonance approximation

$`\gamma _{11}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]+\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\beta _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]r_2[\omega ]r_2[\omega ^{}]e^{2i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}}{D[\omega ,\omega ^{}]}}`$
$`\gamma _{21}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\alpha _2[\omega ,\omega ^{}]e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}}{D[\omega ,\omega ^{}]}}`$
$`D[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`1r[\omega ]r[\omega ^{}]e^{2i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}`$
The denominator $`D`$ characterizes the resonances of the Fabry Perot cavity considered as a mechanical resonator.

Considering that the reflectivity coefficients may be approximated as constant functions from $`0`$ to $`\omega `$, the susceptibility functions are given by the simple expressions ($`r=r_1r_2`$)

$`\gamma _{11}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{4r_1^2}{1r^2e^{2i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}}}`$
$`\gamma _{21}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{4r^2e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}}{1r^2e^{2i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}}}`$
$`\chi _{11}[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}\omega ^3}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{r_1^2}{1r^2e^{2i\omega q}}}`$
$`\chi _{21}[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}\omega ^3}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2e^{i\omega q}}{1r^2e^{2i\omega q}}}`$
corresponding to a motional force

$`\delta F_1(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{6\pi }}\left(r_1^2\left(\delta q_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(t)+r^2\delta q_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(t2q)+r^4\delta q_1^{\prime \prime \prime }(t4q)+\mathrm{}\right)r^2\delta q_2^{\prime \prime \prime }(tq)r^4\delta q_2^{\prime \prime \prime }(t3q)\mathrm{}\right)`$

When compared with equation (23), one notes that the first time derivatives do not appear here because of the resonance approximation (the expression is valid only at high enough frequencies $`\omega \frac{\pi }{q}`$). But the effect of imperfect reflection of the mirrors is now taken into account ($`r_1^2`$ and $`r_2^2`$ are the reflection coefficients of the two mirrors for energy densities) and the susceptibilities are regular functions of the frequency.

## Conclusion

The motional Casimir force constitutes a new type of interaction between two mirrors. As the stationary Casimir effect, it is associated with a modification of the vacuum stress tensor due to the field scattering upon the mirrors. But it is resonantly enhanced at the resonance frequencies of the optical cavity $`\frac{k\pi }{q}`$. When compared with the case of a single mirror, the enhancement may reach the value $`\frac{r_1^2}{1r_1^2r_2^2}`$. Consequently, the motional force might be very large  with the high finesse cavities such as those used in cavity QED .

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Heidmann for discussions.

## A Analytic properties of the correlation functions

For the sake of clarity, we recall here the expressions of the susceptibility functions (see equations 2 and 19)

$`\chi _{ij}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2i\theta (t)\xi _{ij}(t)`$ ()
$`\xi _{ij}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }e^{i\omega ti\omega ^{}t}\xi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]}`$ ()
$`\xi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega \omega ^{}}{8}}\left(\epsilon (\omega )+\epsilon (\omega ^{})\right)\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ ()
Since the susceptibilities are related to the retarded part of the correlation functions, their derivation relies upon the analytic properties of the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$. We show here how these properties can be inferred from the expressions of the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ in terms of the scattering coefficients, which are themselves analytic functions of the frequency (see equations 10). The coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ are obtained from products of two matrices $`_i`$ (see equation 16) which are functions of the scattering and resonance matrices $`S`$ and $`R`$ (see equation 11b). Developping the corresponding expressions, one obtains rather lengthy expressions.

However, these expressions may be simplified by using the following properties. First the $`S`$matrix is unitary ($`S[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}=I`$) and the matrix $`R[\omega ]R[\omega ]^{}`$ may be written in terms of the retarded (analytic for $`Im\omega >0`$) and advanced (analytic for $`Im\omega <0`$) components $`Q[\omega ]`$ and $`Q[\omega ]^{}`$ (see equations 13). Then, it is also possible to reduce products $`R[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}`$ and $`S[\omega ]R[\omega ]^{}`$ by noting that they determine the expression of the intracavity fields in terms of the output ones

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]=R[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]`$

Hence, $`R[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}`$ is an advanced response function and its adjoint $`S[\omega ]R[\omega ]^{}`$ is a retarded one. Simple manipulations lead to

$`S[\omega ]R[\omega ]^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}[\omega ]R[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}=\overline{R}[\omega ]^{}`$ ()
$`\overline{R}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_2& s_2r_1e^{i\omega q}\\ s_1r_2e^{i\omega q}& s_1\end{array}\right)`$ ()
Using these properties, the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ are written as sums of terms, each of them being easily recognized as either a retarded or an advanced function of the two frequency parameters $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$

$`\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _i\epsilon _j(Tr[P_{\epsilon _i}P_{\epsilon _j}+P_{\epsilon _i}P_{\epsilon _j}]`$
$`Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}R[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]^{}P_{\epsilon _j}R[\omega ^{}]^{}\right]`$
$`Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{R}[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}\overline{R}[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{R}[\omega ]^{}P_{\epsilon _j}\overline{R}[\omega ^{}]^{}\right]`$
$`+Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\left(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}\right)P_{\epsilon _j}\left(I+Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+Q[\omega ^{}]^{}\right)\right]`$
$`+Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\left(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}\right)P_{\epsilon _j}\left(I+Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+Q[\omega ^{}]^{}\right)\right]`$
$`+e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}S[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}S[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]+e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}S[\omega ]^{}P_{\epsilon _j}S[\omega ^{}]^{}\right]`$
$`e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}R[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{R}[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}\overline{R}[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]`$
$`e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]^{}P_{\epsilon _j}R[\omega ^{}]^{}+P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{R}[\omega ]^{}P_{\epsilon _j}\overline{R}[\omega ^{}]^{}\right]`$
$`+e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\left(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}\right)P_{\epsilon _j}\left(I+Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+Q[\omega ^{}]^{}\right)\right]`$
$`+e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{})P_{\epsilon _j}(I+Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+Q[\omega ^{}]^{})\right])`$
Now, the susceptibility functions $`\chi _{ij}`$ are obtained by retaining the retarded terms and dropping the advanced ones in $`\xi _{ij}`$ (see equations 25). Consider first the contribution of a term which contains the factor $`\epsilon (\omega )`$, which is still an analytic function of $`\omega ^{}`$ but not of $`\omega `$. Its integration over $`\omega ^{}`$ (see equations 25) provides a contribution to $`\chi _{ij}(t)`$ which is either retarded (vanishing for $`t<0`$) or advanced (vanishing for $`t>0`$). Some terms do not depend upon $`\omega ^{}`$ and their integration contributes for a half to retarded terms and for a half to advanced ones as can be verified explicitly on expressions (25). The terms containing the factor $`\epsilon (\omega ^{})`$ are computed in the same manner by considering the integration over $`\omega `$.

One finally obtains $`\chi _{ij}(t)`$ as an integral over two frequencies (see equations 2) with

$`\chi _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}\omega \omega ^{}}{4}}\left(\epsilon (\omega )\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]+\epsilon (\omega ^{})\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ^{},\omega ]\right)`$

where $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$ is the retarded part of $`\gamma _{ij}`$ considered as a function of its second frequency parameter, that is (assuming $`q>0`$)

$`\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _i\epsilon _j({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr[P_{\epsilon _i}P_{\epsilon _j}+P_{\epsilon _i}P_{\epsilon _j}]`$
$`Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}R[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{R}[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}\overline{R}[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]`$
$`+Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\left(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}\right)P_{\epsilon _j}\left({\displaystyle \frac{I}{2}}+Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right)\right]`$
$`+Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\left(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}\right)P_{\epsilon _j}\left({\displaystyle \frac{I}{2}}+Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right)\right]`$
$`+e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}S[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}S[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]`$
$`e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}R[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}+P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{R}[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _j}\overline{R}[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]`$
$`+e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}\left(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{}\right)P_{\epsilon _j}\left(I+Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right)\right]`$
$`+e^{i(\omega +\omega ^{})q}Tr\left[P_{\epsilon _i}(I+Q[\omega ]+Q[\omega ]^{})P_{\epsilon _j}Q[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right])`$
Using the expressions (8), (9), (13) and (26) of the matrices $`S`$, $`R`$, $`Q`$ and $`\overline{R}`$ in terms of the scattering coefficients describing the two mirrors, algebraic manipulations lead to the expressions (21) of the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$.

As discussed previously, the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ contain terms corresponding to retarded contributions and which appear also in the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$. The other terms correspond to advanced contributions and have been dropped. A comparison between the two types of terms shows that the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ can be deduced in a simple manner from the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}^R`$

$$\gamma _{ij}[\omega ,\omega ^{}]=\gamma _{ij}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]+\gamma _{ji}^R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]^{}$$
(A3)
This relation between the correlation function and the susceptibility function may be considered as the expression of the fluctuation dissipation theorem  for the present problem. With the help of expressions (21), it provides the explicit expressions of the coefficients $`\gamma _{ij}`$ in terms of the scattering coefficients.

## B Connection with squeezing

In the one mirror problem, it has been possible to compute the damping force by considering that the field scattering is modified when the mirror moves. It has been shown that this approach is completely equivalent to the linear response technique . This can also be shown in the two mirrors problem studied in the present paper.

For a single mirror, the modified scattering matrix $`S_i`$ can be written in a first order expansion in the mirror’s motion $`\delta q_i`$ around the position $`q_i`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }S_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ^{}]}`$
$`S_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (\omega \omega ^{})\overline{S}_i[\omega ]+\delta \overline{S}_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$
$`\overline{S}_i[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\eta \omega q_i}S_i[\omega ]e^{i\eta \omega q_i}`$
$`\delta \overline{S}_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega ^{}\delta q[\omega \omega ^{}]e^{i\eta \omega q_i}\left(S_i[\omega ]\eta \eta S_i[\omega ^{}]\right)e^{i\eta \omega ^{}q_i}`$
The modification $`\delta S`$ and $`\delta R`$ of the matrices associated with the Fabry-Perot can be derived from the elementary matrices $`\delta S_i`$ associated with each mirror. One computes

$`\delta R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d[\omega ]}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(P_{\epsilon _i}+P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{S}_{\overline{i}}[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _i}\right)\delta \overline{S}_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\left(P_{\epsilon _i}+P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ^{}]\right)`$
$`\delta S[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_{\epsilon _i}\delta \overline{S}_i[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\left(P_{\epsilon _i}+P_{\epsilon _i}R[\omega ^{}]\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_{\epsilon _i}\overline{S}_i[\omega ]P_{\epsilon _i}\delta R[\omega ,\omega ^{}]`$
$`\overline{i}`$ $`=`$ $`3i`$
Then, one obtains the modified mean force through equations analogous to (11). The susceptibility functions given by the linear response theory are recovered at the end of lengthy calculations.

This discussion shows that the motional Casimir force is connected to the problem of squeezing . As a matter of fact, the motional modification of the field scattering corresponds to a squeezing of the input fields . This squeezing generation requires that energy and impulsion be exchanged between the field and the mirrors. The motional Casimir force can be interpreted as a mechanical consequence of this effect.

As in the single mirror problem, there exists an effective Hamiltonian which describes the squeezing effect (modification of the field in response to the mirrors’ motion) as well as the Casimir forces (mechanical action upon the mirrors in response to a variation of the field stress tensor). This effective Hamiltonian is the secular part (component at zero frequency) of the coupling (18)

$`\delta H[0]={\displaystyle dt\delta H(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }\underset{j}{}\delta q_j[\omega \omega ^{}]\omega \omega ^{}Tr\left[_j[\omega ,\omega ^{}]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ^{}]^\mathrm{T}\right]}`$