text:
# Untitled Document

TOTAL POLARISATION CONVERSION IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL ELECTRON SYSTEM UNDER CYCLOTRON POLARITON RESONANCE CONDITIONS

V. V. Popov∗), T. V. Teperik

Saratov Division of the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics,
Russian Academy of Sciences, 410019 Saratov, Russia
$`)`$ e-mail:popov@ire.san.ru, Fax:7(8452)519104

The polarisation conversion of a linear polarized electromagnetic wave incident onto a two-dimensional ($`2D`$) electron system at an angle $`\theta `$ is theoretically studied. We consider the $`2D`$ system located at the interface between two dielectric media with different dielectric constants. An external dc magnetic field is assumed to be directed along the normal to the $`2D`$ electron layer. In such a configuration the cyclotron-polaritons (CPs) in $`2D`$ electron system can be excited with the frequencies in the vicinity of the cyclotron frequency. Under the CPs excitation the resonance polarisation conversion of electromagnetic wave greatly increases in the system. In the absence of the electron scattering in $`2D`$ system, the polarisation conversion reaches 100% at a certain value of the angle of incidence $`\theta >\theta _R`$, where $`\theta _R`$ is the total reflection angle. Extremely high polarisation conversion takes place in a quite wide range of variation of the angle of incidence. High polarisation conversion efficiency (above 80%) remains when the actual electron scattering in the $`2D`$ system on GsAs is taken into account. The considered phenomena may be taken up in polarisation spectroscopy of $`2D`$ electron systems.

It is well known that optical-activity effects, which are optical rotation and polarisation conversion, take place in the systems which possess no mirror planes of symmetry. Just such a system is two-dimensional ($`2D`$) electron plasma layer in an external magnetic field. The conversion of the polarisation of an electromagnetic wave (EW) shined onto magnetoactive $`2D`$ electron system is usually small \[1-3\] because in this case the region of interaction of EW with the polarisation active medium is small. However, the effect may increase substantially (resonantly) when the external EW excites eigen-oscillations in the $`2D`$ system.

The resonant Faraday effect arising in a system of $`2D`$ electron disks as result of the excitation of edge magnetoplasmons was observed in . The results obtained in  show that the effect becomes several times stronger under magnetoplasma resonance conditions. At the same time, the power of the polarisation-converted wave in the experiments  remains comparatively low (less than 10% of the power of the incident wave). The smallness of the resonance effect in this case is most likely due to the mismatch of the distributions of the field of the external (uniform in the plane of the $`2D`$ system) EW and the field of nonuniform edge magnetoplasmons, as a result of which the excitation efficiency of the latter decreases substantially.

The resonant polarisation conversion of an electromagnetic wave which is assosiated with the excitation of uniform transverse plasma oscillations of electrons in a thin semiconductor film has been studied in . The magnitude of the effect is proportional to a small parameter $`d/\lambda `$, where $`d`$ is the film thickness and $`\lambda `$ is the EW wavelength. Naturally, this lowers the efficiency of resonant polarisation conversion in thin layers.

The limitations due to a small thickness of the electron layer, in principle, do not arise if the external EW excites in-plane eigen-oscillations in the layer. There are two types of in-plane collective excitations in a homogeneous $`2D`$ electron system. They are well known surface magnetoplasmon-polaritons (MPPs) and cyclotron-polaritons (CPs) . In  it is shown that when the MPPs are excited in a $`2D`$ electron system by an external EW in an attenuated total reflection (ATR) geometry, almost complete conversion of the incident $`p(s)`$-polarised wave into a wave with $`s(p)`$-polarisation is possible. However, according to , total polarisation conversion occurs in the limit of weak coupling of the external EW with $`2D`$ electron system. In this case, two resonance conditions, corresponding to excitation of the both MPPs and cyclotron oscillations in $`2D`$ electron layer must be fulfilled at the same time. It is clear that these conditions lead to very stringent requirements on the parameters of a possible expirement on the observation of total polarisation conversion. Moreover, dissipation of the energy of the EW due to electron scattering in a real $`2D`$ system can lead to almost complete distraction of a weak coupling of the external EW with the oscillations of a $`2D`$ electron plasma in the ATR geometry.

In the present work the phenomenon of the resonant polarisation conversion of EW which excites the CPs in a $`2D`$ electron system is studied theoretically. Since the CPs are radiative oscillations, they can be excited by the incidence of the external EW directly onto the surface of a $`2D`$ system without using any additional devices (like the ATR structures). In this situation the CPs in a $`2D`$ system are strongly coupled to the incident EW, greatly expanding the possibilities of observing the phenomena considered below.

In the structure considered here, the $`2D`$ electron layer is located in the $`xy`$ plane in the interface of two media with dielectric conctance $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$. Static magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ is directed along the $`z`$ axis. One can solve the whole magneto-optical problem in the structure shown in Fig.1 starting from the Maxwell equations with boundary conditions at the interface of the media which take into account the response of the magnetoactive $`2D`$ electron plasma. We describe the $`2D`$ electron plasma in a simpliest local Drude model for conductivity tensor

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \sigma _{}\sigma _\times \\ \hfill \sigma _\times \sigma _{}\end{array}\right)$$

with the components

$$\sigma _{}=\sigma _0\frac{1i\omega \tau }{(\omega _c\tau )^2+(1i\omega \tau )^2},\sigma _\times =\sigma _0\frac{\omega _c\tau }{(\omega _c\tau )^2+(1i\omega \tau )^2},$$
(1)
where $`\omega `$ is the angular frequency of the EW, $`\omega _c=|e|B_0/cm^{}`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`\sigma _0=e^2N_s\tau /m^{}`$ is the conductivity of the $`2D`$ electron system in the absence of an external magnetic field, $`e`$ and $`m^{}`$ are, respectively, the charge and effective mass of electron, $`N_s`$ is the surface electron density, $`\tau `$ is the phenomenological relaxation time of the electron momentum in $`2D`$ system.

Let us assume that the EW incident onto $`2D`$ system from medium 1 (see Fig.1) at an angle $`\theta `$ to the $`z`$ axis has a linear $`p`$-polarisation so that the electric vector of the wave resides in the plane of incidence ($`xz`$ plane). Then we can introduce the magneto-optical complex coefficients for electric fields:

$$r_{pp}=\frac{E_p^{(r)}}{E_p^{(i)}},r_{sp}=\frac{E_s^{(r)}}{E_p^{(i)}},t_{pp}=\frac{E_p^{(t)}}{E_p^{(i)}},t_{sp}=\frac{E_s^{(t)}}{E_p^{(i)}},$$
(2)
where superscripts $`i`$, $`r`$, and $`t`$ refer to the incident, reflected, and transmitted waves, respectively, and the subscripts $`p`$ and $`s`$ correspond to waves with $`p`$ and $`s`$ polarisation (in the latter case the electric field vector of the EW is perpendicular to the plane of incidence). We can also introduce the power conversion coefficients as ratios of the components of the energy flux vectors normal to the plane of the $`2D`$ system:

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{pp}=\frac{P_{pz}^{\left(r\right)}}{P_{pz}^{\left(i\right)}},R_{sp}=\frac{P_{sz}^{\left(r\right)}}{P_{pz}^{\left(i\right)}},T_{pp}=\frac{P_{pz}^{\left(t\right)}}{P_{pz}^{\left(i\right)}},T_{sp}=\frac{P_{sz}^{\left(t\right)}}{P_{pz}^{\left(i\right)}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The meanings of subscripts and superscripts in (3) are the same as in (2). The quantities $`r_{sp}`$, $`t_{sp}`$, $`R_{sp}`$, and $`T_{sp}`$ are obviously the polarisation conversion coefficients.

Since the procedure of the solution of the electromagnetic problem is quite standard, although rather cumbersome, we do not present here explicit overlenghty expressions for magneto-optical and power conversion coefficients.

It is well known  that the magnitudes of wave vector $`k_x`$ of the CPs in the plane of $`2D`$ system lie in the range $`0<k_x<\omega \sqrt{\mathrm{max}(\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2)}/c`$. An external EW incident at an angle $`\theta `$ excites in the $`2D`$ system force oscilations with longitudinal wave vector $`k_x=\omega \sqrt{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{sin}\theta /c`$. In order to be able to investigate the entire range of variation of the CP wave vector values, we assume $`\epsilon _1>\epsilon _2`$. It is obvious that for $`\theta >\theta _R`$, where $`\theta _R=\mathrm{sin}^1(\epsilon _2/\epsilon _1)^{1/2}`$, the regime of total internal reflection of the EW from the media interface takes place.

The most interesting is the behaviour of polarisation conversion coefficient $`R_{sp}`$ at the CP resonance. The corresponding curves for the case where there is no electron scattering in the $`2D`$ system ($`1/\tau =0`$) are presented in Fig.2. The remaining parameters used in the calculations are characteristic for GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures with a $`2D`$ electron gas. The choice of values of the dc magnetic field that correspond to the results presented is dictated by the condition of resonant excitation of the CPs $`\omega \omega _c`$ . It follows from Fig.2 that $`R_{sp}`$ increases substantially in the total internal reflection region and reaches unity at a certain angle of incidence $`\theta >\theta _R`$. For comparison, we indicate that far from resonant values of the dc magnetic field the calculations give a polarisation conversion coefficient $`R_{sp}`$ less than $`10^3`$ for any angle of incidence. At resonance (Fig.2) the extremely high polarisation conversion coefficient remains in a quite wide range of variation of the angle of incidence of the EW. This is explained by the comparatively weak dependence of the CP frequency on the in-plane wave vector $`k_x=(\omega \sqrt{\epsilon _1}/c)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ . As it is evident from Fig.2, polarisation conversion is quenched for $`\theta =\theta _R`$ and $`\theta =\pi /2`$. The physical explanation for this fact is that in the both cases the total electric field at the $`2D`$ electron layer is perpendicular to the $`2D`$ system plane . Therefore, the external EW does not interact with in-plane excitations of $`2D`$ system at these angles.

In Fig.3 the dark tone indicates $`\omega \theta `$ regions in which the polarisation conversion coefficient $`R_{sp}>0.99`$ for various values of the surface electron density in $`2D`$ system. The figure also shows the CP dispersion curves $`\omega [k_x(\theta )]`$ for the same values of the surface density. For a low electron density the total polarisation conversion occurs near the cyclotron-polariton frequency ($`\omega \omega _c`$) for any angle of incidence of the EW. This corresponds to the case of weak coupling when the external wave induces comparatively low electric currents in the $`2D`$ system. As the electron density increases, the coupling of the external EW to the $`2D`$ system grows, and the frequency range in which almost total polarisation conversion occurs broadens. Under strong coupling the total polarisation conversion occurs at resonant frequencies different from the CP eigen-frequencies.

The state of polarisation of reflected wave may be determined from the ratio of the magneto-optical complex reflection coefficients (2) $`r_{sp}/r_{pp}=(|r_{sp}|/|r_{pp}|)\mathrm{exp}(i\delta )`$. The magneto-optical rotation angle $`\psi `$ and ellipticity $`\epsilon `$ of reflected wave are calculated by the formulas :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{tg2}\psi & =& \mathrm{tg2}\phi \mathrm{cos}\delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}2\epsilon & =& \mathrm{sin}2\phi \mathrm{sin}\delta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`\phi =\mathrm{tg}^1(|r_{sp}|/|r_{pp}|)`$. In Fig.4 the rotation angle and ellipticity are shown in the frequency range across the CP magneto-optical resonance in the total reflection regime. In the absence of the electron scattering in $`2D`$ system the ellipticity becomes zero at the resonance and the rotation angle reaches the values of $`\pm \pi /2`$. These correspond to the total polarisation conversion conditions. The rotation angle experiences a jump of $`\pi `$ and the handedness of elliptical polarisation reverses its sign at the resonance. The electron scattering in a real $`2D`$ electron system leads to a gradual but still very steep transition of the rotation angle from positive to negative values across the resonance (see Fig.4).

The effect of electron scattering in $`2D`$ system on the CP assisted polarisation conversion is demonstrated in Fig.5. It is evident that if the coupling between external EW and the CPs in the $`2D`$ system is weak (low electron density), the electron scattering suppresses the polarisation conversion effect almost completely like in the case of MPP assisted polarisation conversion in ATR geometry. At the same time, a high polarisation conversion efficiency at CP resonance remains even in the presence of the electron scattering if the electron density in the $`2D`$ system is high. Because of that the CP assisted polarisation conversion at high electron densities in $`2D`$ system is much more profitable from the practical point of view as compared to MPP assisted one.

Note that the solution of the problem of the incidence of an $`s`$-polarized wave onto a $`2D`$ electron system gives the same values for the polarisation conversion coefficients ($`R_{ps}=R_{sp}`$) in the total reflection regime. This attests to a reciprocal character of the polarisation conversion process for $`\theta \theta _R`$.

The thank Yu.A.Kosevich for calling our attention to the problem under consideration. This work was supported by the Federal Target Program ”Integration” (Project 696.3) and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant No. 00-02-16440).

References

1. R.F.O’Connell, G.Wallace, Phys. Rev. B., 26 (1982) 2231.
2. V.A.Volkov and S.A.Mikhailov, JETP Lett., 41 (1985) 476.
3. V.A.Volkov, D.V.Galchenkov, L.A.Galchenkov et al., JETP Lett., 43 (1986) 326.
4. L.A.Galchenkov, I.M.Grodnenskii, M.V.Kostovetskii et al., Fiz. Tekh. Poluprovodn., 22 (1988) 1196 \[Sov. Phys. Semicond., 22 (1988) 757\].
5. M.I.Bakunov and S.I.Zhukov, Pis‘ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz., 16, 1 (1990) 69 \[Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett., 16 (1990) 30\].
6. V.V.Popov, T.V.Teperik, and G.M.Tsymbalov, JETP Lett., 68 (1998) 210.
7. Yu.A.Kosevich, Solid State Commun., 104 (1997) 321.
8. V.V.Popov and T.V.Teperik, JETP Lett., 70 (1999) 254.
9. M.Born and E.Wolf, Principles of Optics (6th edn). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.

Figure captions.

Fig.1. The structure under consideration and coordinate system. $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$ are dielectric constants of the media.

Fig.2. Coefficient of conversion of the polarisation in the reflected wave vs the angle of incidence: a) $`N_s=2\times 10^{12}`$ cm-2; $`B_0`$ (kG): 44 (1), 45 (2), 46 (3), 46.5 (4), 47 (5); b) $`B_0=46`$ kG; $`N_s(10^{12}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2})`$: 0.8 (1), 0.9 (2), 1 (3), 2 (4), 3 (5). $`\omega /2\pi c=60`$ cm-1, $`\epsilon _1=12.8`$, $`\epsilon _2=1`$.

Fig.3. Regions of the parameters $`\omega \theta `$ with the polarisation conversion efficiency $`R_{sp}>0.99`$ and dispersion curves for cyclotron-polaritons for $`\epsilon _1=12.8`$, $`\epsilon _2=1`$, $`B_0=46`$ kG, and $`N_s(10^{12}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2})`$: 0.2 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4).

Fig.4. Rotation angle (solid curves) and ellipticity (dashed curves) of the reflected wave vs frequency across the CP resonance with no electron scattering (curves 1) and with electron scattering (curves 2, $`\tau =10^{12}`$ s) in $`2D`$ system.

Fig.5. Curves 1 and 3 correspond to the case when there is no electron scattering in the $`2D`$ system ($`1/\tau =0`$); curves 2 and 4 correspond to $`1/\tau =10^{11}`$ s-1. Curves 1 and 2: $`N_s=2\times 10^{12}`$ cm-2, $`B_0=46`$ kG; curves 3 and 4: $`N_s=2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, $`B_0=45.3`$ kG. All other parameters are the same as in Fig.2.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In perturbative multi-loop calculations, the subtraction of UV-divergences in quantum field theory generally leads to Green functions which fail to respect the symmetries of the theory. With the exception of the well-known $`\gamma _5`$ problem, the method of dimensional regularization is compatible with the gauge symmetry but it breaks the supersymmetry. In these cases a practical method is needed to restore the symmetry identities of the gauge symmetry or of the supersymmetry. Here the method of algebraic renormalization  supplies a complete solution. However, this method has rarely been used in practical calculations although it has been applied intensively in order to demonstrate the renormalizability of various models.

In a recent papers , we reviewed the method of algebraic renormalization from a practical point of view and proposed an algebraic method combining the advantages of the background field method (BFM) and the simplification of (intermediate) Taylor subtractions. The method is independent of the regularization scheme; since the local breaking terms are under control, one can use the most convenient regularization scheme in a specific application. After a straightforward analysis of the corresponding (Ward-Takahashi Identities) WTIs and (Slavnov-Taylor Identities) STIs, the spurious anomalies introduced by a non-invariant regularization scheme were shown to reduce to a few universal breaking terms which depend only on finite Green’s functions. The method was already applied to several phenomenologically relevant examples in the SM, such as the two-loop contributions to the processes $`H\gamma \gamma `$, to $`BX_s\gamma `$ and to the three-gauge boson vertices .

Because of the experimental precision of standard model observables at LEP (CERN, Geneva), at SLC (SLAC, Stanford) and at TEVATRON (FERMILAB), calculations of quantum corrections on the two-loop level are necessary; and the $`\gamma _5`$ play a critical role here. The purpose of this note is to offer a theoretical analysis of the electroweak two-loop contribution to the muon decay using our algebraic method, and to show its efficiency.

Since a detailed self-contained discussion of the fundamental symmetry constraints for the SM, of the algebraic renormalization procedure in the BFM, and of our specific subtraction method can be found in , we restrict ourselves here to reviewing briefly the basic steps of our method (Sec. 2). Then we discuss the muon-decay amplitude, in particular the gauge-invariant subset of two-loop diagrams which is sensitive to the $`\gamma _5`$ problem (Sec. 3). It is well-known that there is a physical infrared divergence present in the muon-decay amplitude. For this purpose, we propose an IR regulator that is manifestly compatible with all the symmetries of the SM (Sec. 4).

## 2 General Strategy

In the following, we briefly review the main steps elaborated in  to renormalize a gauge model with a non-invariant regularization technique. The BFM turns out to be very important for our purposes and, therefore, we quantize the SM in the ‘t Hooft background gauge .

The use of a non-invariant regularization scheme induces breaking terms into the STIs

$$𝒮\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\right)=\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n),S}+𝒪(\mathrm{}^{n+1}),$$
(1)
which implement the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) symmetry, and into the WTIs

$$𝒲_{(\lambda )}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\right)=\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n),W}+𝒪(\mathrm{}^{n+1}),$$
(2)
which implement the background gauge invariance of the SM. The definition of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒲_{(\lambda )}`$ is given in .

The local breaking terms are denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n),S}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n),W}`$. Note that the locality is a consequence of the Quantum Action Principle. Here and in the following, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ denotes the $`n`$-loop order regularized and (minimally) subtracted one-particle-irreducible (1PI) function. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ includes the renormalization of all subdivergences. The STIs and the WTIs are not able to fix the Green functions completely. Indeed it is possible to add invariant local terms to the action changing the normalization conditions of the Green functions. A complete analysis on the normalization conditions for the SM can, for instance, be found in .

Acting on the broken WTIs (2) with the Taylor operator $`(1T^\delta )`$ one gets

$$(1T^\delta )𝒲_{(\lambda )}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(3)
where $`\delta `$ has to be chosen in such a way that $`(1T^\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n),S/W}=0`$. After commuting the Taylor operator $`(1T^\delta )`$ with $`𝒲_{(\lambda )}`$, we obtain

$$𝒲_{(\lambda )}\left[(1T^\delta ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\right]=\left[T^\delta 𝒲_{(\lambda )}𝒲_{(\lambda )}T^\delta ^{}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),W}(\lambda ),$$
(4)
where $`\delta ^{}`$ is the naive power-counting degree of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$. In general, one has $`\delta \delta ^{}`$, hence the commutation of the Taylor operator with $`𝒲_{(\lambda )}`$ leads to over-subtractions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ and, thus, to the new breaking terms $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),W}(\lambda )`$ occurring on the r.h.s. of Eq. (4) (for more details see ). The breaking terms $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),S}(\lambda )`$ for the STIs are defined in the same way. Therefore, the application of the Taylor subtraction on Eqs. (1) and (2) transforms them into

$`𝒮\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}\right)=\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),S}+𝒪(\mathrm{}^{n+1})`$ and $`𝒲_{(\lambda )}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}\right)=\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),S}+𝒪(\mathrm{}^{n+1}),`$ (5)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}=(1T^\delta )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$.

The breaking terms $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),S}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),W}`$ can be expressed in terms of a linear combination of ultra-violet (UV) finite Green functions. Here we assumed that up to the $`(n1)`$-loop order the Green functions are already correctly renormalized. The main difference between $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),S}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n),W}`$ is due to the linearity of the corresponding operators $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒲_{(\lambda )}`$. In the former case one has to consider non-linear terms arising from lower loop orders. On the contrary, the linearity of the WTIs enormously simplifies the evaluation of the breaking terms and of counterterms.

Finally, we introduce

$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}=(1T^\delta )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)},`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}`$ is chosen in such a way that the following identities are fulfilled:

$`𝒮\left(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\right)=0,`$ $`𝒲_{(\lambda )}\left(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\right)=0.`$ (7)
In general, it is quite simple to compute the counterterm, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{C.T.}=T^\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}+\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}`$, as it can be expressed in terms of Green functions expanded around zero external momenta.

As already mentioned above, there is still the freedom to add invariant counterterms. In other words, we have the freedom to impose normalization conditions that lead in addition to Eqs. (7) to the following equation being fulfilled:

$`𝒩_i\left(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\right)=0,`$ (8)
where the index $`i`$ runs over all independent parameters of the SM. As the Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ also has to fulfill this condition we have for the counterterm

$`𝒩_i\left(T^\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}+\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
which is a local equation. This means that, whenever the effort to impose the normalization conditions is done the changes due to the subtraction are only a local changes which can be easily compensated. For clarity let us consider an example: for the condition on the $`W`$ boson mass we could choose $`𝒩_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}^+\widehat{W}^{}}^{(n)})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}^+\widehat{W}^{}}^{(n),T}(p^{})=0`$ where the superscript $`T`$ stands for the transverse part and $`\mathrm{Re}(p^{})=M_W`$. Notice that the imposition of normalization conditions is a very important ingredient for the computation in order to compare with other schemes and in order to simplify the breaking terms themselves.

The procedure described so far is heavily based on the Taylor operator $`T^\delta `$. In the presence of massless particles this may introduce infra-red (IR) divergences. In  we presented a modified procedure which resolves this spurious IR problem generally.

## 3 Muon Decay Amplitude

### 3.1 General settings

* Muon decay amplitude

We want to focus on the $`O(N_f\alpha ^2)`$ contributions including the two-loop three-point functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ ***All momenta are considered as incoming. In the Green functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _n}`$ they are assigned to the corresponding fields starting from the right. The momentum of the most left field is determined via momentum conservation. $`\widehat{W}`$ denotes the background field corresponding to the quantum field $`W`$. with a $`\widehat{W}`$ and an electron (muon) and electron- (muon-) neutrino. This subgroup of $`O(N_f\alpha ^2)`$ contributions to the muon decay amplitude is the most delicate one regarding the $`\gamma _5`$-problem. An example is given in Fig. 1.

There are further contributions at the two-loop level such as the diagrams including the two-loop-two-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\widehat{W}_\nu ^{}}(p)`$ (Fig. 1). These have already been discussed within our approach in , but there are no problems with $`\gamma _5`$ there. Moreover, there are two-loop box diagrams with a gauge-boson self-energy inside (as shown in the last diagram of Fig. 1).

Thus, let us focus on contributions like the one shown in the first picture of Fig. 1. We have to consider the complete gauge-invariant subset of two-loop contributions to the three-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$. Actually, there are various types of diagrams shown in Fig. 2. Here we note that only the first two diagrams in Fig. 2 change when switching from a conventional gauge to the ‘t Hooft-background gauge.
* IR problems

Among the $`O(N_f\alpha ^2)`$ gauge-invariant subset of diagrams (see Fig. (2)), one has to consider those with a virtual photon. Those diagrams are potentially IR divergent and only the $`O(N_f\alpha ^2)`$ contributions to the physical amplitude, after the inclusion of the Bremsstrahlung radiation of the external electron and muon, turn out to be finite.

Historically , the virtual photon contributions, namely the pure QED corrections, are analysed separately from the electroweak corrections by using a suitable decomposition of massless propagators. In that spirit, the pure QED corrections have been computed in  and the remaining complete electroweak corrections are IR finite. In paper  the $`O(N_f\alpha ^2)`$ corrections are computed in the MS scheme and the massless quark approximation has been used. In  the exact fermionic contributions, in on-shell scheme, are taken into account. However, since we are not interested in the explicit evaluation of the muon amplitude, but only to present a procedure to handle the $`\gamma _5`$ problem in the present process, we will not disentangle the QED corrections in our considerations.

As a consequence, we have to keep the possible IR divergences under control, namely we have to be sure that all the steps of the computation are IR regulated. The situation is worsened by the fact that, according to our procedure, the Taylor expansion in Eqs. (4) is performed at zero momentum. For those purposes, we propose a BRST invariant IR regularization for the photon within the SM (see Sec. 4). This method regulates both physical and spurious IR divergences simultaneously.

An alternative approach to IR problems is the following: regarding $`\gamma _5`$, the delicate diagram is shown in the first picture of Fig. (1) which belong to the pure vertex corrections $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$. Luckily, this vertex Green function is the simplest one – compared to box and external-leg corrections – from the IR perspective. This is because its physical IR singularities are induced only by the on-shell wave-function renormalization.

Therefore, we can also avoid the physical IR problems by choosing an off-shell renormalization procedure. There are two ways of doing this: i) either one imposes an on-shell renormalization for the neutrino and, as a consequence of WTIs, an off-shell renormalization prescription of the electron is automatically provided (see next section), ii) or one can also choose a MS wave-function renormalization for external fermions which is infrared finite and compatible with the background gauge invariance.

Finally, to handle the spurious IR problems generated by means of the Taylor subtraction, a modification of the procedure is discussed in . Here, the modified breaking terms $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2),W}`$, occurring in the WTI for the Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$, is written explicitly.
* Kinematic approximations

The specific kinematic situation allows for some simplifications: in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ the $`W`$ is off-shell, while both the electron and the electron-neutrino are on-shell. We can make the approximation $`p_W^2=0`$ and neglect $`m_{muon}/m_W`$-terms, because the muon is almost at rest. All momenta squared are zero, and hence

$$p_W=p_\nu =p_e=0.$$
(10)
In the following we will derive all symmetry constraints for the general kinematic case and then specify to the zero-momentum setting (10).
* Subdivergences

Considering only the $`O(N_f\alpha ^2)`$ contributions to the two-loop three-point vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$, we have to take into account three kinds of one-loop subdivergences: the three-gauge boson vertices with one background and two quantum fields (they have been largely discussed in  within the BFM framework), the quantum gauge boson self-energies (they have been analysed in  without and with the BFM; in particular, in  the conversion from background field amplitudes to quantum ones is completely exploited) and the one-loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(1)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ amplitude together with their corresponding scalar vertices where the gauge boson is replaced by the Goldstone boson (notice that this amplitude appears also as subdivergence for two-loop three-gauge boson vertices and it is extensively discussed in ).

Moreover, the renormalization of one-loop amplitudes can be quite easily handled within different regularization techniques, therefore we can assume, for the time being, that the one-loop Green functions already satisfy the WTIs (or the STIs) and fulfill certain normalization conditions. Nevertheless, to apply our procedure, we have to compute the one-loop counterterms which must be inserted in one-loop graphs. By using the notation of the introduction, these counterterms are given by

$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(n)}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\left[T^\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}+\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}\right]`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bare}}^{(n)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{(n)}\left[T^\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bare}}^{(n)}+T^\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{(n)}+\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}\right].`$
In the second line we have introduced the bare Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bare}}^{(n)}`$ in addition. This quantity is defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bare}}^{(n)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{(n)}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{(n)}`$ denotes the necessary UV counterterms computed in the specific regularization used in the calculation. Of course, the complete one-loop counterterms, namely $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bare}}^{(n)}`$, have to be taken into account at the two-loop level.

For instance, in the case of charged gauge-boson self-energies, given $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)`$ (which satisfy the normalization conditions and the corresponding STIs) and given $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)`$, computed in the same regularization as will be used in the two-loop computation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$, the counterterms are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1),C.T.}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`T_p^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)\right)+\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1)}(p),`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{W,1}^{(1)}p^2g_{\mu \nu }+\xi _{W,2}^{(1)}p_\mu p_\nu +\xi _{M_W}^{(1)}g_{\mu \nu },`$ (12)
where

$`\xi _{W,1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}\left(5_p^2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\mu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)|_{p=0}2_{p^\mu }_{p^\nu }\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)|_{p=0}\right),`$
$`\xi _{W,2}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}\left(_p^2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\mu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)|_{p=0}+4_{p^\mu }_{p^\nu }\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)|_{p=0}\right),`$
$`\xi _{M_W}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W_\mu ^+W_\mu ^{}}^{(1)}(p)|_{p=0}.`$ (13)
In the same way, all the other possible one-loop divergences can be computed once the renormalized Green functions $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ are known.

In some cases, the BFM does not achieve great advantages (for instance, in the cases of amplitudes with external fermions only) at the practical level and, on the other hand, it could be convenient to use the conventional gauge fixing. However, the Green functions computed with external background fields can be easily related to those with external quantum fields by using the extended versions of the BRST symmetry.

### 3.2 Two-loop vertex function

Working in the framework of the BFM, there is only one WTI for the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ that has to be evaluated at two loops (cf. ):

$`i\left(p_\nu +p_e\right)_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\rho ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)+iM_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{G}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{s_W\sqrt{2}}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\nu }\nu }^{(2)}(p_\nu )P_LP_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{e}e}^{(2)}(p_e)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2),W}(p_\nu ,p_e).`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2),W}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ is a polynomial of the external momenta $`p_\nu `$ and $`p_e`$ of maximum degree 1. We define the weak mixing angle through the on-shell relation $`c_W=M_W/M_Z`$ as we want to maintain the form of the WTIs to be the same to all orders. $`P_{L/R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ are the chiral projectors.

The breaking terms in (3.2) are generated by a non-invariant regularization procedure, for instance by using the ‘t Hooft-Veltman definition of $`\gamma _5`$ . To remove them, according to the procedure described in , we apply the Taylor operator $`(1T_{p_\nu ,p_e}^1)`$, obtaining

$`i\left(p_\nu +p_e\right)_\rho \left[\left(1T_{p_\nu ,p_e}^0\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\rho ^+\overline{p_\nu }p_e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)\right]+iM_W\left[\left(1T_{p_\nu ,p_e}^0\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{G}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{s_W\sqrt{2}}}\left\{\left[\left(1T_{p_\nu }^1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\nu }\nu }^{(2)}(p_\nu )\right]P_LP_R\left[\left(1T_{p_e}^1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{e}e}^{(2)}(p_e)\right]\right\}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2),W}(p_\nu ,p_e).`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2),W}(p_\nu ,p_e)=iM_W\left(p_\nu ^\rho _{p_\nu ^\rho }+p_e^\rho _{p_e^\rho }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{G}^+\overline{\nu }p_e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)|_{p_\nu =p_e=0},`$ (16)
are finite and are generated by means of the over-subtraction.

Notice that the computation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2),W}`$ can be also performed without encountering any UV divergences. For that purpose, it is sufficient to implement the subtraction of UV subdivergences directly in such a way that all the diagrams are always finite. Technically, we suggest the use of Zimmermann’s subtraction formula . Since all the integrals involved can be performed analytically, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2),W}`$ can be evaluated exactly. In this way, we use the Dirac algebra in $`4`$ dimensions without any ambiguities.

Notice that the zero momentum subtraction in Eq. (3.2) removes exactly the contribution that we would like to evaluate to compute the muon decay amplitude in the approximation (10). However, this contribution can be computed as a counterterm. Notice in fact that, the local part of the muon decay amplitude is totally fixed when the normalization conditions for fermion two-point functions and the WTIs are used.

By using the parametrization

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\overline{\psi }\psi }^{(2)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{2,\psi }^{(2)}\left(\overline{)}pm_\psi \right)+\xi _\psi ^{(2)}m_\psi ,\psi =\nu ,e`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{L,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}\gamma ^\mu P_L+\xi _{R,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}\gamma ^\mu P_R,`$ (17)
for two- and three-point functions, and decomposing the breaking terms into scalar functions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2),W}(p_\nu ,p_e)=i\left(\psi _1^{(2)}\overline{)}p_\nu P_L+\psi _2^{(2)}\overline{)}p_\nu P_R+\psi _3^{(2)}\overline{)}p_eP_L+\psi _4^{(2)}\overline{)}p_eP_R\right),`$ (18)
we have the solution

$`\xi _{R,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _2^{(2)}=\psi _4^{(2)},`$
$`\xi _{L,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_W\sqrt{2}}}\xi _{2,\nu }^{(2)}+\psi _1^{(2)},`$
$`\xi _{2,e}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{2,\nu }^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_W\sqrt{2}}{e}}\left(\psi _1^{(2)}\psi _3^{(2)}\right),`$ (19)
for the coefficients. Notice that the equality $`\psi _2^{(2)}=\psi _4^{(2)}`$ follows from the consistency conditions (see, for example, the discussion in ) and it provides a check of the computation of the breaking terms. In addition, from Eqs. (3.2), it emerges that $`\xi _{2,e}^{(2)}=\xi _{2,\nu }^{(2)}`$ in the case of invariant regularization techniques, namely when $`\psi _i^{(2)}=0,i`$. This means that we are not allowed to impose any arbitrary normalization conditions for fermion residues. If the neutrino is renormalized in such a way that its residues is equal to 1, the electron residue will be clearly different from 1. In this way, we have a partial on-shell scheme, we maintain the background gauge symmetry and we can avoid the physical IR divergences for the vertex amplitude.

The final result, namely diagram computation plus counterterms, can be written in the following way

$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)`$ (20)
$`\left[T_{p_\nu ,p_e}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu ,p_e)+\xi _{L,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}\gamma ^\mu P_L+\xi _{R,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}\gamma ^\mu P_R\right].`$
The parameters $`\xi _\nu ^{(2)}`$ and $`\xi _e^{(2)}`$ are used to impose mass renormalization conditions on the fermion self-energies.

From this we learn that the symmetric amplitude $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}`$ at zero momentum is just given by the universal counterterm:

$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}(p_\nu =0,p_e=0)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _{L,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}\gamma ^\mu P_L\xi _{R,\widehat{W}^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}\gamma ^\mu P_R.`$ (21)
The proposed procedure allows for an efficient computation of the amplitude $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}`$ at two-loop order avoiding the $`\gamma _5`$ problem. In the literature, different techniques with different prescription of $`\gamma _5`$ have been used to evaluate the Feynman diagrams of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{W}_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }e}^{(2)}`$, however we believe that a rigorous check of these result is desirable.

## 4 Massive U(1) BRST symmetry within the SM

It is a well-known problem that in the computation of Green’s function there are IR divergences due to the vanishing photon mass. In this brief section, we will describe how to perform a regularization of the photonic IR divergences in a way that is consistent with the BRST symmetry of the SM and, thus, preserves the unitarity of the model (see also ). The choice of such a regulator is motivated essentially by the fact that it regulates both the physical and spurious IR divergences.

We will refer to the Stueckelberg method (see  and references therein). This method gives rise to unsolvable renormalization problems in the case of Yang-Mills fields, which only can only be resolved through the Higgs mechanism. However, in the abelian case it provides a manifestly BRST (and the background gauge) invariant model of massive QED.

For pedagogical purposes, we present a short digression regarding the Stueckelberg formalism in QED. The Lagrangian is given by

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}F_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2g^2}}(A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_\mu \phi )^2+s(\overline{c})+_{\mathrm{matter}},`$
$`_{\mathrm{matter}}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\overline{)}M)\mathrm{\Psi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu (A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_\mu \phi )\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (22)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$.

The apparent non-renormalizable derivative coupling $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \phi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be absorbed by a field redefinition

$$\psi =e^{\frac{i}{m}\phi }\mathrm{\Psi },_{matter}=\overline{\psi }(\gamma ^\mu (i_\mu +A_\mu )M)\psi .$$
(23)
Notice that in the non-abelian case a redefinition of fields of type (23) will generate new non-eliminable non-renormalizable terms .

The BRST transformations of the fundamental fields are given by

$`s\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=0,\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_\mu \phi ,`$
$`s\phi `$ $`=mc,sc`$ $`=0,`$ (24)
$`s\overline{c}`$ $`=b,sb`$ $`=0.`$
Thus, the BRST multiplets consist of two trivial pairs $`(\phi ,c)`$, $`(\overline{c},b)`$ and one singlet $`\widehat{A}_\mu =A_\mu \frac{1}{m}_\mu \phi `$. This means that the physical spectrum will be independent of $`(\phi ,c)`$ and $`(\overline{c},b)`$.

In the gauge-fixing-ghost term $`s(\overline{c})`$, $``$ is a real bosonic function of all the fields and their derivatives. For example, the ‘t Hooft-Feynman gauge fixing

$$=\frac{1}{g^2}(\frac{1}{2}b^\mu A_\mu m\phi ),$$
(25)
leads directly to noninteracting ghosts $`\overline{c}`$ and $`c`$. Moreover, the $`\widehat{A}\phi `$ sector does not contain higher derivatives or dipoles. The field strengths $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ calculated from $`A`$ and from $`\widehat{A}`$ coincide. The field $`b`$ is auxiliary with the algebraic equation of motion $`b=^\mu A_\mu +m\phi `$ Thus, the $``$ defines a massive abelian gauge field coupled to matter fields.

To extend the Stueckelberg formalism to the SM quantized in the background gauge, the scalar field $`\phi `$ transforms under the BRST symmetryNotation, definitions, and quantum numbers can be found in . and under the background gauge transformations in the following way

$$s\phi =\mu c,\delta _{(\lambda )}\phi =\mu \lambda ,$$
(26)
where $`\lambda `$ is the infinitesimal parameter of the background gauge transformations. $`\mu `$ is the IR regulator and $`c`$ is the $`U(1)`$ ghost. The latter can be written in terms of the combination $`c=c_Wc_A+s_Wc_Z`$, where $`c_A`$ and $`c_Z`$ are the photon ghost and the ghost associated with the $`Z`$ boson, respectively. It follows that a term like

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Stu}}=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi \mu _\mu \phi B^\mu +\frac{\mu ^2}{2}B^\mu B_\mu \right),$$
(27)
is BRST and background gauge invariant for all the values of the parameter $`\mu `$ and the last term provides a mass term for the $`B_\mu `$ fields. Other $`\phi `$-dependent invariant terms can be constructed, however it is easy to show that all of them, but (27), can be reabsorbed by a simple redefinition of the field $`B_\mu `$ (cf. ). In addition, in order to deal with diagonal two-point functions the ‘t Hooft gauge fixing

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Stu},\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}`$ $`=`$ $`s{\displaystyle d^4x\overline{c}\left(^\mu B_\mu \rho \mu \phi +\xi _0b\right)}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[b\left(^\mu B_\mu \rho \mu \phi +\xi _0b\right)\overline{c}^2c+\rho \mu ^2\overline{c}c\right]},`$
is used. Here $`\xi _0`$ is the conventional gauge fixing parameter of the $`U(1)`$ sector and $`\rho `$ is the ‘t Hooft parameter. With this gauge fixing, it is easy to see that the gauge field $`B_\mu `$, the scalar field $`\phi `$ and the ghosts $`\overline{c},c`$ (with masses $`\mu ^2,\rho ^2\mu ^2/\xi _0`$ and $`\rho \mu ^2`$) form a quartet which ensures the unitarity of the model. Notice that the BRST variation of $`\phi `$ says that this field corresponds to a would-be-Goldstone boson, and the spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism – in the abelian case – can be implemented without the Higgs counterpart.

In the SM framework, the field $`B_\mu `$ does not coincide with the physical photon field, but the mixing with the third component of $`SU(2)`$ gauge boson triplet $`W_\mu ^3`$ has to be considered. We have to cancel this term by modifying the gauge fixing function $`_B`$ (cf. , Eq. (A.3)) for the abelian field in the following way

$$_B=^\mu B_\mu +\rho _0(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}+v)^it_{ij}^0\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+v\right)^j+\frac{\xi _0}{2}b_B\rho \mu \phi ,$$
(29)
where $`\rho `$ is the t’Hooft parameter for the $`\phi `$ field. By eliminating the Lagrange multiplier $`b`$, we have the gauge fixing terms

$`^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi _0}}\left[^\mu B_\mu \rho \mu \phi +\rho _0(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}+v)^it_{ij}^0\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+v\right)^j\right]^2`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi _0}}(^\mu B_\mu )^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2\mu ^2}{2\xi _0}}\phi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0g^2v^2}{2\xi _0}}G^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho \rho _0\mu vg^{}}{2\xi _0}}\phi G`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho \mu }{\xi _0}}^\mu B_\mu \phi {\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0vg^{}}{\xi _0}}^\mu B_\mu G`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho vg^{}}{2\xi _0}}\left(^\mu B_\mu \mu \rho \phi \right)\left(H\widehat{G}\widehat{H}G\right){\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2g^2v^2}{2\xi _0}}\left(H\widehat{G}\widehat{H}G\right)^2,`$
where $`g^{}`$ is the $`U(1)`$ gauge coupling, $`v`$ is the vacuum expectation value, $`G`$ and $`H`$ are the Goldstone boson and the Higgs field, respectively, while $`\widehat{G}`$ and $`\widehat{H}`$ are their background partners. The first line contains the contribution to the quadratic part of the action, this shows that also the masses of the Goldstone boson $`G`$ are modified by the introduction of the Stueckelberg field $`\phi `$. The mixed terms $`\phi ^\mu B_\mu `$ and $`G^\mu B_\mu `$ are cancelled (in the restricted ‘t Hooft gauge) by the mixing terms coming from the covariant derivatives of the kinetic terms (i.e. from Eq. (27)). Finally the last terms describe the interactions between $`\phi `$ and the other fields. As can be noticed all the interaction terms depend on the background fields. Therefore, the Stueckelberg $`\phi `$ field can be generated only if the fields $`\widehat{G}`$ or $`\widehat{H}`$ appear as external vertices of the amplitude or due to the mixing with the neutral Goldstone boson. This is the only difference between the Stueckelberg formalism and its application to the SM quantized in the background gauge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank P. Gambino, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, A. Ferroglia and M. Pernici for useful comments and discussions. We also warmly thank our collaborator Matthias Steinhauser. The work of P.A.G. is supported by NSF grants no. PHY-9722083 and PHY-0070787.


text:
# Untitled Document

KEK-TH-740 hep-th/0101177

Comments on Open Wilson Lines
and Generalized Star Products

Kazumi Okuyama

Theory Group, KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan

kazumi@post.kek.jp

We consider an open Wilson line as a momentum representation of a boundary state which describes a $`D`$-brane in a constant $`B`$-field background. Using this picture, we study the Seiberg-Witten map which relates the commutative and noncommutative gauge fields, and determine the products of fields appearing in the general terms in the expansion of this map.

January 2001

1. Introduction

In the recent study of noncommutative gauge theories, the open Wilson lines play an important role. They are used to construct gauge invariant operators \[1,,2,,3,,4\], and also appear in the couplings between open and closed string modes \[5,,6,,7,,8,,9\]. The correlation functions of open Wilson lines are studied in \[3,,10,,11,,12\].

In the expansion of an open Wilson line as a power series of the noncommutative gauge field, there appears the so-called generalized star products . These products also appear in the scattering amplitudes of string theories and noncommutative field theories \[14,,15,,16,,17,,18,,19\]. In \[20,,13\], open Wilson lines were used to construct the Seiberg-Witten map which relates the commutative and noncommutative gauge fields . In this map, there also appears the structure of the generalized star products.

In this short note, we consider an open Wilson line as a momentum representation of a boundary state describing a $`D`$-brane in a constant $`B`$-field background. Using this picture, we study the Seiberg-Witten map and determine the products of fields which appear in the general terms in the expansion of this map.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we review the open Wilson lines from the viewpoint of boundary state. In section 3, we show that the generalized star products can be written as correlation functions on $`𝐒^1`$. In section 4, we construct the Seiberg-Witten map up to $`𝒪(A^3)`$ from the gauge equivalence condition and compare this result with that obtained from the open Wilson line. Section 5 is devoted to the conclusion and discussion.

2. Open Wilson Lines from Boundary State

In this section, we review how open contours appear in gauge invariant objects in noncommutative gauge theories \[1,,4\] from the viewpoint of boundary state. Let us consider a gauge theory on noncommutative $`𝐑^n`$, which is defined by the algebra

$$[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij}.$$

On this space, the open Wilson line $`W(k)`$ is defined by

$$W(k)=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{exp}(ik_i(x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j))_{}$$

where $`\widehat{A}`$ is the noncommutative gauge field and the product of fields is taken by the star product

$$fg=f\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{_k}\theta ^{kl}\stackrel{}{_l}\right)g.$$

In the boundary state formalism, $`W(k)`$ can be written as an overlap between the closed string tachyon $`|k`$ and the boundary state $`|B`$ describing a $`D`$-brane in a constant $`B`$-field background :

$$W(k)=k|B=[dx]\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma \frac{1}{2}x^iB_{ij}_\sigma x^jk_i(x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j)\right).$$

$`\theta `$ and $`B`$ are related by

$$\theta =\frac{1}{B}.$$

The closed string configuration $`x(\sigma )`$ is parametrized by $`\sigma [0,1]`$.

We can consider the general Wilson line which is the overlap between $`|B`$ and the closed string momentum eigenstate:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(\sigma )|B& =\mathrm{Tr}𝐏\mathrm{exp}(i_0^1d\sigma P_i(\sigma )(x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j))_{}\hfill \\ & =[dx]\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma \frac{1}{2}x^iB_{ij}_\sigma x^jP_i(x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`𝐏`$ denotes the path ordering.

At first sight, it seems impossible to obtain the open contour from the boundary state which is an element of the Hilbert space of a closed string. As shown in \[1,,4\], the open contour does appear when we write the exponential in (2.1) as a product of small segments and move the factor $`e^{ikx}`$ to the leftmost. In the rest of this section, we shall rederive this result from the path integral formalism. To do this, we should carefully treat the boundary condition of the integration variable $`x(\sigma )`$. First we write $`P(\sigma )|B`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(\sigma )|B& =𝑑x_0x_0|𝐏e^{i_0^1𝑑\sigma P(\sigma )(x+\theta \widehat{A})}|x_0\hfill \\ & =𝑑x_0x_0+y(1)|e^{i\mathrm{\Pi }(1)y(1)}𝐏e^{i_0^1𝑑\sigma P(\sigma )(x+\theta \widehat{A})}e^{i\mathrm{\Pi }(0)y(0)}|x_0+y(0)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the conjugate momentum of $`x`$. Here we introduced an arbitrary path $`y(\sigma )`$ which may or may not be open at this stage. We can rewrite (2.1) as a phase space path integral with constraints:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(\sigma )|B=& [d\mathrm{\Pi }dx_{\mathrm{open}}]\delta (\chi _i)det{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\{\chi _i,\chi _j\}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }_i_\sigma x_{\mathrm{open}}^iP_i(x_{\mathrm{open}}^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j)_\sigma (\mathrm{\Pi }_iy^i)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The constraints are given by

$$\chi _i=\mathrm{\Pi }_i+\frac{1}{2}B_{ij}x_{\mathrm{open}}^j,$$

which are the second class: $`\{\chi _i,\chi _j\}=B_{ij}`$ 1 For the BRST quantization of this system and its relation to the Seiberg-Witten map, see .. The boundary condition of $`x_{\mathrm{open}}`$ is specified by

$$x_{\mathrm{open}}(1)x_{\mathrm{open}}(0)=y(1)y(0).$$

Integrating out $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, $`P(\sigma )|B`$ becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(\sigma )|B=[dx_{\mathrm{open}}]\mathrm{exp}& (i_0^1d\sigma \frac{1}{2}x_{\mathrm{open}}^iB_{ij}_\sigma x_{\mathrm{open}}^jP_i(x_{\mathrm{open}}^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j)\hfill \\ & +\frac{i}{2}_\sigma (y^iB_{ij}x_{\mathrm{open}}^j)).\hfill \end{array}$$

In this expression, the contour $`y(\sigma )`$ is arbitrary. In the case $`_\sigma y=\theta P`$, by shifting the variable $`x_{\mathrm{open}}`$ to $`x+y`$, $`P(\sigma )|B`$ can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(\sigma )|B& =_{\mathrm{periodic}}[dx]\mathrm{exp}(i_0^1d\sigma \frac{1}{2}x^iB_{ij}_\sigma x^j\frac{1}{2}y^iB_{ij}_\sigma y^j\hfill \\ & +_\sigma (y^iB_{ij}x^j)+_\sigma y^i\widehat{A}_i(x+y))\hfill \\ & =e^{i_0^1\frac{1}{2}y^iB_{ij}_\sigma y^j}\mathrm{Tr}e^{ipx}𝐏\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma _\sigma y^i\widehat{A}_i(x+y)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

In the last step, we used the relation

$$y(1)y(0)=_0^1_\sigma y=\theta p,$$

where $`p`$ is the center of mass momentum of closed string

$$p=_0^1𝑑\sigma P(\sigma ).$$

In summary, the open contour appears in the $`y`$-space which is defined by

$$_\sigma y^i(\sigma )=\theta ^{ij}P_j(\sigma ).$$

This is the same relation as the T-duality except for the factor of $`\theta `$. Therefore, we can understand the appearance of open contour as the winding mode which is T-dual to the center of mass momentum. Note that the straight open line corresponds to the momentum $`P(\sigma )`$ without non-zero modes, or the closed string tachyon $`|k`$ (see  for the recent discussion).

3. Generalized Star Product

In \[13,,20\], it was shown that the generalized star products appears when we expand the open Wilson lines. In the path integral representation, the generalized star product can be written as a correlation function of exponential operators on $`𝐒^1`$:

$$\delta (k\underset{a}{}k_a)J_n(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\sigma kx(\sigma )}}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}_0^1𝑑\sigma _ae^{ik_ax(\sigma _a)}.$$

Here, the expectation value is defined by

$$𝒪=_{\mathrm{periodic}}[dx]𝒪\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma \frac{1}{2}x^iB_{ij}_\sigma x^j\right).$$

The factor $`\delta (k_ak_a)`$ in (3.1) comes from the integral over the zero-mode of $`x(\sigma )`$. The non-zero mode $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma )`$ of $`x(\sigma )`$ is defined by

$$x(\sigma )=x_0+\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma ),_0^1𝑑\sigma \stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma )=0.$$

The propagator of non-zero mode of $`x`$ on $`𝐒^1`$ should satisfy

$$iB_{ik}_1\stackrel{~}{x}^k(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{x}^j(\sigma _2)=\delta _i^j\left[\delta (\sigma _1,\sigma _2)1\right].$$

The solution of this condition is

$$\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma _1)\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma _2)=\frac{i}{2}\theta \tau (\sigma _{12})$$

where $`\sigma _{12}=\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ and

$$\tau (\sigma )=2\sigma ϵ(\sigma ).$$

Fig. 1: Graph of $`\tau (\sigma )`$

$`\tau (\sigma )`$ in (3.1) is defined on the region $`1\sigma 1`$. We can extend $`\tau (\sigma )`$ to the outside of this region with periodicity $`1`$. As a Fourier series, $`\tau (\sigma )`$ can be written as

$$\tau (\sigma )=\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{sin}(2\pi n\sigma ).$$

$`J_n`$ in (3.1) is the correlation function of non-zero modes, which is written as

$$J_n(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}_0^1𝑑\sigma _a\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{}k_a\theta k_b\tau (\sigma _{ab})\right).$$

We denote the product determined by $`J_n`$ as $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)_n`$. Note that this product is totally symmetric.

By inserting

$$1=\underset{a=1}{\overset{n1}{}}_1^1𝑑s_{an}\delta (s_{an}\tau (\sigma _{an}))$$

and integrating over $`\sigma _a(a=1,\mathrm{},n1)`$, $`J_n`$ can also be written as

$$J_n=\frac{1}{2^{n1}}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n1}{}}_1^1𝑑s_{an}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{}k_a\theta k_bs_{ab}\right)$$

where $`s_{ab}(a,bn)`$ is given by

$$s_{ab}=\tau \left(\frac{s_{an}s_{bn}}{2}\right).$$

$`J_n`$ is known to satisfy the following descent relation

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_a\theta k_nJ_n(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{2}k_a\theta k_n\right)J_{n1}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_a+k_n,\mathrm{},k_{n1}).$$

In the position space, this relation can be written as (e.g. for $`n=2,3`$)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i\theta ^{kl}(_kf,_lg)& =[f,g]_{},\hfill \\ \hfill i\theta ^{kl}_k(f,g,_lh)_3& =(f,[g,h]_{})+(g,[f,h]_{}),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`[f,g]_{}=fggf`$ and $`(f,g)(f,g)_2`$.

4. Seiberg-Witten Map and Generalized Star Product

In this section, we consider the Seiberg-Witten map from the viewpoint of the gauge equivalence condition  and the two descriptions of an open Wilson line \[22,,24\].

4.1. Seiberg-Witten Map from Gauge Equivalence Condition

First we consider the Seiberg-Witten map as the correspondence between commutative and noncommutative gauge transformation. To construct the map, it is more convenient to see this map as the correspondence of two BRST transformations. The nilpotent BRST transformation associated with commutative gauge transformation is

$$\delta A_i=_ic,\delta c=0.$$

For the noncommutative case, the BRST transformation is given by

$$\delta \widehat{A}_i=_i\widehat{c}i[\widehat{A}_i,\widehat{c}]_{},\delta \widehat{c}=\frac{i}{2}[\widehat{c},\widehat{c}]_{}.$$

$`c`$ and $`\widehat{c}`$ are ghost fields for commutative and noncommutative gauge symmetries, respectively. Here, the commutator of the general fields $`f,g`$ with ghost number $`|f|,|g|`$ is defined by $`[f,g]_{}=fg(1)^{|f||g|}gf`$. Note that $`[\widehat{c},\widehat{c}]_{}`$ does not vanish since $`\widehat{c}`$ carries the ghost number $`1`$.

We can construct the Seiberg-Witten map as a power series in $`A`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{A}& =A+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A^{(n)}=\widehat{A}(A),\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{c}& =c+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c^{(n)}=\widehat{c}(c,A),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the superscript $`n`$ denotes the order of $`A`$. First, let us consider the map for ghosts. By equating the terms of the same order in $`A`$, the relation $`\delta \widehat{c}=i[\widehat{c},\widehat{c}]_{}/2`$ can be decomposed as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta c^{(1)}& =\frac{i}{2}[c,c]_{}=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}(_kc,_lc),\hfill \\ \hfill \delta c^{(2)}& =i[c,c^{(1)}]_{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here, we used the relation (3.1). By “integrating” this relation, we find that $`c^{(1)}`$ and $`c^{(2)}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c^{(1)}& =\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}(A_k,_lc),\hfill \\ \hfill c^{(2)}& =\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}\theta ^{mn}A_k,_mc,_lA_n,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $``$ is defined by

$$f,g,h=(f,(g,h))+(g,(f,h))(f,g,h)_3.$$

This product is symmetric in the first two arguments: $`f,g,h=g,f,h`$. Now we consider the map for gauge fields. The equations satisfied by $`A^{(2)}`$ and $`A^{(3)}`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta A_i^{(2)}& =_ic^{(1)}i[A_i,c]_{},\hfill \\ \hfill \delta A_i^{(3)}& =_ic^{(2)}i[A_i^{(2)},c]_{}i[A_i,c^{(1)}]_{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The solution for these conditions is found to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_i^{(2)}& =\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}(A_k,_lA_i+F_{li}),\hfill \\ \hfill A_i^{(3)}& =\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}\theta ^{mn}\left[A_k,_mA_i,_lA_n+A_k,F_{mi},F_{ln}+A_k,A_m,_lF_{in}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

4.2. Path Integral Derivation of Seiberg-Witten Map

In this subsection, we derive the Seiberg-Witten map from the open Wilson line in commutative and noncommutative pictures. We will see that the map obtained by this method agrees with that in the previous subsection. The relation between $`A`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{W}(\widehat{A})=W(A)$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{W}(\widehat{A})& =\mathrm{exp}\left(ipx(0)+i_0^1𝑑\sigma \widehat{A}_i(x+y)_\sigma y^i\right),\hfill \\ \hfill W(A)& =\mathrm{exp}\left(ipx(0)+i_0^1𝑑\sigma A_i(x+y)_\sigma (x^i+y^i)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

As discussed in , Seiberg-Witten map can be extracted from (4.1) by expanding the exponential and equating the term with single $`\sigma `$-integral. The term with single $`\sigma `$-integral in $`\widehat{W}(\widehat{A})`$ is

$$i_0^1𝑑\sigma _\sigma y^i\widehat{A}_i(p)e^{ipy(\sigma )}.$$

The corresponding term in $`W(A)`$ has the form

$$i_0^1𝑑\sigma _\sigma y^i\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_i^{(n)}(p)e^{ipy(\sigma )}$$

where $`A^{(n)}`$ is the $`n`$-th order term of $`A`$. Let us compute the first three terms of this expansion. As easily seen, $`A^{(1)}`$ is equal to $`A`$. $`A^{(2)}`$ is found to be

$$A_i^{(2)}(p)=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}𝑑k_1𝑑k_2\delta (pk_1k_2)I_2(k_1,k_2)A_k(k_1)(_lA_i+F_{li})(k_2)$$

where $`I_2`$ is given by

$$I_2(k_1,k_2)=_0^1𝑑\sigma _1\delta (\sigma _{12})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}k_1\theta k_2\tau (\sigma _{12})\right).$$

The factor $`\delta (\sigma _{12})`$ comes from the contraction between $`_1x(\sigma _1)`$ and $`x(\sigma _2)`$. By regularizing the $`\delta `$-function as in , we find that $`I_2`$ is equal to $`J_2`$:

$$I_2(k_1,k_2)=\frac{1}{2}_1^1𝑑ϵ_{12}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}k_1\theta k_2ϵ_{12}\right)=J_2(k_1,k_2).$$

Therefore, (4.1) reproduces the result (4.1) obtained from the gauge equivalence relation.

Let us consider $`A^{(3)}`$. From (4.1), $`A^{(3)}`$ is found to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_i^{(3)}(p)=& \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}\theta ^{mn}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}dk_a\delta (p\underset{a}{}k_a)I_3(k_1,k_2,k_3)\hfill \\ & A_k(k_1)\left[_mA_i(k_2)_lA_n(k_3)+F_{mi}(k_2)F_{ln}(k_3)+A_m(k_2)_lF_{in}(k_3)\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`I_3`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_3& =_0^1𝑑\sigma _1𝑑\sigma _2\delta (\sigma _{13})\delta (\sigma _{23})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{\overset{3}{}}k_a\theta k_b\tau (\sigma _{ab})\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}_0^1𝑑\sigma _a\delta (\sigma _{13})\delta (\sigma _{23})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{\overset{3}{}}k_a\theta k_b\tau (\sigma _{ab})\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we put an extra integral over $`\sigma _3`$ since $`I_3`$ does not depend on $`\sigma _3`$. To evaluate $`I_3`$, the following identity is useful:

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}_0^1𝑑\sigma _a_1\tau (\sigma _{13})_2\tau (\sigma _{23})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{}k_a\theta k_b\tau (\sigma _{ab})\right)=0.$$

This identity holds due to the periodicity of $`\tau (\sigma )`$. Using the relation $`\frac{1}{2}_\sigma \tau (\sigma )=1\delta (\sigma )`$, $`I_3`$ can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_3& =\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}_0^1𝑑\sigma _a\left[\delta (\sigma _{13})\delta (\sigma _{23})(1\delta (\sigma _{13}))(1\delta (\sigma _{23}))\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{}k_a\theta k_b\tau (\sigma _{ab})\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}_0^1𝑑\sigma _a\left[\delta (\sigma _{13})+\delta (\sigma _{23})1\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{}k_a\theta k_b\tau (\sigma _{ab})\right)\hfill \\ & =J_2(k_1,k_3)J_2(k_1+k_3,k_2)+J_2(k_2,k_3)J_2(k_1,k_2+k_3)J_3(k_1,k_2,k_3).\hfill \end{array}$$

We can see that the product defined by $`I_3`$ is nothing but $`f,g,h`$ in (4.1). Hence (4.1) agrees with (4.1).

Although we cannot write down the tensor structure of spacetime indices $`i,j`$ for the general term $`A^{(n)}`$, we can determine the form of product appearing in $`A^{(n)}`$. $`A^{(n)}`$ is associated with the integral with $`n1`$ $`\delta `$-functions. This set of $`\delta `$-functions determines the tree graph with $`n`$ vertices and $`n1`$ links. All the vertices should be connected by this graph in order for $`A^{(n)}`$ to be a single $`\sigma `$-integral term. The integral associated with the graph $`G`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_n(G)=& \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}_0^1𝑑\sigma _a\left[\underset{L:\mathrm{link}}{}\delta (\sigma _{L_iL_f})\underset{L:\mathrm{link}}{}(1\delta (\sigma _{L_iL_f}))\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{a<b}{}k_a\theta k_b\tau (\sigma _{ab})\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& J_n(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)+\underset{L:\mathrm{link}}{}J_2(k_{L_i},k_{L_f})J_{n1}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_{L_i}+k_{L_f},\mathrm{},k_n)+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`L_i,L_f\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ are the end points of $`L`$.

4.3. Area Derivative of Open Wilson Line

Using the boundary state picture of open Wilson lines, we can easily construct the field strength operator with open Wilson line attached. This operator was used in  to construct the Seiberg-Witten map in the form $`A=A(\widehat{A})`$. The open Wilson line in the commutative and noncommutative picture is written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(\sigma )|B& =[dx]\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma \frac{1}{2}x^iB_{ij}_\sigma x^jP_i(\sigma )\varphi ^i(x(\sigma ))\right)\hfill \\ & =[dx]\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma \frac{1}{2}x^iB_{ij}_\sigma x^j+A_i(x)_\sigma x^iP_i(\sigma )x^i(\sigma )\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\varphi ^i=x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j.$$

By performing the “area derivative” of open Wilson line defined by

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{ij}}=\underset{ϵ+0}{lim}\frac{\delta }{\delta P^i(ϵ)}\frac{\delta }{\delta P^j(0)}\frac{\delta }{\delta P^i(0)}\frac{\delta }{\delta P^j(ϵ)},$$

we find that

$$\mathrm{Tr}_B\left([\varphi ^i,\varphi ^i]e^{ik\varphi }\right)__B=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\left([x^i,x^i]e^{ikx}\right)_{_{}}.$$

Here $`_B`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}_B`$ are the star product and the trace defined by the symplectic form $`B`$. In the commutative side, the symplectic form becomes

$$=B+F=\theta ^1+F.$$

As discussed in , this relation (4.1) can be understood as the equivalence of star products:

$$Tf_BTg=T(f_{}g).$$

With this operation $`T`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`x`$ are related by $`\varphi ^i=T(x^i)`$. See  for the derivation of the Seiberg-Witten map from the equivalence of star products.

The left-hand-side of (4.1) can be evaluated as

$$\mathrm{Tr}_B\left([\varphi ^i,\varphi ^i]e^{ik\varphi }\right)__B=i\mathrm{Tr}_B\left[(\theta \theta \widehat{F}\theta )^{ij}𝐏\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^1𝑑\sigma \widehat{A}_i(x+\theta k\sigma )\theta ^{ij}k_j\right)e^{ikx}\right]__B.$$

The right-hand-side of (4.1) is a complicated function of $`F`$, which can be calculated in principle by the formula in \[26,,27\]. If we neglect the derivative of $`F`$, the commutator of $`x`$ can be written as

$$[x^i,x^j]_{_{}}=i(^1)^{ij}+𝒪(F)=i\left(\frac{1}{\theta ^1+F}\right)^{ij}+𝒪(F).$$

5. Conclusion and Discussion

In this paper, we considered the open Wilson line as a momentum representation of the boundary state in a constant $`B`$-field background. The straight open Wilson line corresponds to the tachyonic particle state of closed string, and the curved open Wilson line appears as the coupling between a $`D`$-brane and an extended closed string. The generalized star products can be understood as the correlation functions of exponential operators on the boundary of worldsheet. The Seiberg-Witten map can be obtained by comparing the open Wilson line written in commutative and noncommutative pictures. The products of fields appearing in the Seiberg-Witten map are the combination of the generalized star products, and in principle the general term of the map can be determined by the rule of Wick contraction.

In , a closed form for the expression of the ordinary field strength in terms of the noncommutative gauge field was proposed. Although (4.1) gives the exact relation between $`F`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$, it seems difficult to prove eq.(1.7) in .

In , it was shown that the interactions between the noncommutative gauge field and closed string modes in the superstring theory are different from those in the bosonic string theory. It is interesting to extend our result to the case of superstring.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank N. Ishibashi for useful comments and discussions. This work was supported in part by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.

References

relax N. Ishibashi, S. Iso, H. Kawai and Y. Kitazawa, “Wilson Loops in Noncommutative Yang Mills”, Nucl. Phys. B573 (2000) 573, hep-th/9910004. relax J. Ambjorn, Y. M. Makeenko, J. Nishimura and R. J. Szabo, “Finite N Matrix Models of Noncommutative Gauge Theory”, JHEP 9911 (1999) 029, hep-th/9911041; “Nonperturbative Dynamics of Noncommutative Gauge Theory”, Phys. Lett. B480 (2000) 399, hep-th/0002158; “Lattice Gauge Fields and Discrete Noncommutative Yang-Mills Theory”, JHEP 0005 (2000) 023, hep-th/0004147. relax D. J. Gross, A. Hashimoto and N. Itzhaki, “Observables of Non-Commutative Gauge Theories”, hep-th/0008075. relax A. Dhar and S. R. Wadia, “A Note on Gauge Invariant Operators in Noncommutative Gauge Theories and the Matrix Model”, Phys. Lett. B495 (2000) 413, hep-th/0008144. relax S.-J. Rey and R. Unge, “S-Duality, Noncritical Open String and Noncommutative Gauge Theory”, hep-th/0007089. relax S. Das and S.-J. Rey, “Open Wilson Lines in Noncommutative Gauge Theory and Tomography of Holographic Dual Supergravity”, Nucl. Phys. B590 (2000) 453, hep-th/0008042. relax S. R. Das and S. P. Trivedi, “Supergravity couplings to Noncommutative Branes, Open Wilson Lines and Generalised Star Products”, hep-th/0011131. relax H. Liu and J. Michelson, “Supergravity Couplings of Noncommutative D-branes”, hep-th/0101016. relax Y. Okawa and H. Ooguri, “How Noncommutative Gauge Theories Couple to Gravity”, hep-th/0012218. relax A. Dhar and Y. Kitazawa, “Wilson Loops in Strongly Coupled Noncommutative Gauge Theories”, hep-th/0010256. relax M. Rozali and M. V. Raamsdonk, “Gauge Invariant Correlators in Non-Commutative Gauge Theory”, hep-th/0012065. relax A. Dhar and Y. Kitazawa, “High Energy Behavior of Wilson Lines”, hep-th/0012170. relax H. Liu, “$``$-Trek II: $`_n`$ Operations, Open Wilson Lines and the Seiberg-Witten Map”, hep-th/0011125. relax M. R. Garousi, “Non-commutative world-volume interactions on D-brane and Dirac-Born-Infeld action”, Nucl. Phys. B579 (2000) 209, hep-th/9909214. relax H. Liu and J. Michelson, “$``$-TREK: The One-Loop N=4 Noncommutative SYM Action”, hep-th/0008205. relax M. Pernici, A. Santambrogio and D. Zanon, “The one-loop effective action of noncommutative $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills is gauge invariant”, hep-th/0011140. relax M. R. Garousi, “Transformation of the Dirac-Born-Infeld action under the Seiberg-Witten map”, hep-th/0011147. relax A. Kumar, A. Misra and K. L. Panigrahi, “Noncommutative N=2 Strings”, hep-th/0011206. relax Y. Kiem, D. H. Park and S. Lee, “Factorization and generalized $``$-products”, hep-th/0011233. relax T. Mehen and M. B. Wise, “Generalized $``$-Products, Wilson Lines and the Solution of the Seiberg-Witten Equations”, JHEP 0012 (2000) 008, hep-th/0010204. relax N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry”, JHEP 9909 (1999) 032, hep-th/9908142. relax N. Ishibashi, “A Relation between Commutative and Noncommutative Descriptions of D-branes”, hep-th/9909176. relax I. Rudychev, “From noncommutative string/membrane to ordinary ones”, hep-th/0101039. relax K. Okuyama, “A Path Integral Representation of the Map between Commutative and Noncommutative Gauge Fields”, JHEP 0003 (2000) 016, hep-th/9910138. relax B. Jurco and P. Schupp, “Noncommutative Yang-Mills from equivalence of star products”, Eur. Phys. J. C14 (2000) 367, hep-th/0001032; B. Jurco, P. Schupp and J. Wess, “Noncommutative gauge theory for Poisson manifolds”, Nucl. Phys. B584 (2000) 784, hep-th/0005005; “Nonabelian noncommutative gauge fields and Seiberg-Witten map”, hep-th/0012225. relax M. Kontsevich, “Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds”, q-alg/9709040. relax A. S. Cattaneo and G. Felder, “A path integral approach to the Kontsevich quantization formula”, math.QA/9902090.


text:
# Calculation of Magnetic Penetration Depth Length 𝝀(𝑻) in High Tc Superconductors

\[

## Abstract

The notion of a finite pairing interaction energy range via Nam, results in the incomplete condensation in which not all states participate in pairings. The states not participating in pairings are shown to yield the low energy states responsible for the linear T dependence of superelectron density at low T in a s-wave superconductor. We present extensive quantitative calculations of $`\lambda `$(T) for all T ranges, in good agreements with experiments. It is not necessary to have nodes in the order parameter, to account for the linear T dependence of $`\lambda `$(T) at low T in high Tc superconductors.

\]

One of crucial parameters in a superconductor is the magnetic penetration depth length $`\lambda (T)`$ which reflects the condensation carrier density, superelectron density $`\rho _s(T)`$, in the London model as

$$\rho _s(T)/\rho _s(0)=\left[\lambda (0)/\lambda (T)\right]^2.$$
(1)
The $`\rho _s(T)`$ plays an important role for understanding the nature of condensation. In the Gorter and Casimir two fluid model (GC), $`\rho _s(T)`$ varies as $`1(T/T_c)^4`$. But the BCS-$`\rho _s(T)`$ has an activation form at low $`T`$ via the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which indicates the excitation energy gap. The measurements  of $`\lambda (T)`$ at low $`T`$ in high $`T_c`$ superconductors (HTS) are compatible with neither the BCS result nor the GC picture. Data indicate the linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\rho _s(T)`$ at low $`T`$. This linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\lambda (T)`$ in fact is taken as providing evidence that the order parameter has nodes, suggesting the d-wave pairing state. On the other hand, one of us  has shown that the notion of a finite pairing interaction energy range $`T_d`$ results in the incomplete condensation and the low energy states responsible for the linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\rho _s(T)`$ at low $`T`$ in a s-wave superconductor. Moreover, the incomplete condensation yields the multi-connected superconductors(MS) which can account for the $`\pi `$-phase shift in Pb-YBCO SQUID and 1/2 fluxoid quantum in the YBCO ring with three grain boundary junctions.

Recently, the oxygen isotope effect , $`T_cM^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =0.40.49`$ in LSCO single crystal, suggests the electron-phonon interaction would play an important role for understanding superconductivity in cuprate materials. And the BSCCO bicrystal c-asxis twist Josephson junction experiment indicates the dominant order parameter contains the s-wave and not d-wave component. Moreover, no node in the order parameter is observed in the angular dependence of the non-linear transverse magnetic moment of YBCO in the Meissner state. On the other hand, the scanning tunneling microscope imaging the effects of individual zinc impurity atoms on superconductivity in BSCCO  shows the four fold symmetric quasiparticle cloud, indicating the d-wave component. But no four fold is observed in the same system . Perhaps, the observation of  may be a reflection of the Fermi surface.

It is highly desirable to carry out quantitative calculations of $`\lambda (T)`$ for all $`T`$ ranges to see the accountability of finite $`T_d`$ picture for $`\lambda (T)`$ data of HTS. In this letter, we present extensive quantitative calculations of $`\lambda (T)`$ for all $`T`$ ranges in good agreements with data of HTS. For this, it is worthy to recapitulate the pertinent results for the notion of a finite $`T_d`$.

To see the phase transition, the transition temperature $`T_c`$ should be a finite value, that is, neither zero nor infinite. To have a finite value of $`T_c`$, the pairing interaction energy range $`T_d`$ should be finite, since $`T_c`$ is scaled with $`T_d`$ within the pairing theory. In other words, the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$ may be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }\hfill & \mathrm{for}|ϵ_k|<T_d\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}|ϵ_k|>T_d\hfill \end{array}\right\}`$ (4)
for all frequencies $`\omega `$. Here $`ϵ_k`$ is the usual normal state excitation energy with the momentum $`k`$, measured with respect to the Fermi level.

Here the natural units of $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$ are used. Later we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ with $`T`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as well. Note that $`w`$ has no constraint and that in the case of pairings of carriers via the electron-phonon interaction, the $`T_d`$ corresponds to the Debye temperature. However, the nature of $`T_d`$ in HTS is still unknown. Our results are not depending on the nature of $`T_d`$. The order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the solution of the BCS like equation

$$\frac{1}{g}=_0^{T_d}\frac{dϵ}{E}tanh\frac{\beta }{2}E,$$
(5)
where $`E=(ϵ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{1/2},\beta =1/T`$, and $`g`$ corresponds to the BCS coupling parameter $`N(0)V_{BCS}`$. The solution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`g`$ are shown in the unit of $`T_d`$ in Fig. 2.

The equation for $`T_c`$ from Eq. (5) via $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T_c)=0`$ may be written as

$$1/g=(2/\pi )\underset{j}{}(2/j)tan^1(y/j),$$
(6)
where $`y=T_d/\pi T_c`$, and sum is over the positive odd integers $`j`$. The factor of arctangent function makes the sum converge. For large $`y`$, Eq. (5) yields the BCS result $`T_c`$(BCS). The quantitative calculations of $`T_c`$ are given in Fig. 3, together with the BCS $`T_c(BCS)`$. Unlike the BCS result of $`T_c(BCS)`$, the $`T_c`$ from Eq.(6) does not have any upper limit. The fact is that for large $`g>2.32`$, $`T_c`$ increases with increasing g as $`T_c=gT_d/2`$. One interesting value of g = 0.657 yields $`T_c`$ = 100 K with $`T_d`$ = 400 K which is of the order of the Debye temperature in HTS. This value of g may be realized in YBCO by considering the electron-phonon interaction of the order of $`\lambda _p=1.32.3`$ .

The BCS parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c`$ can be easily calculated from Eq. (5) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c=T_d/[T_csinh(1/g)].$$
(7)
As is shown in Fig. 4, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c`$ is a function of $`g`$ or $`T_c/T_d`$, and increases with increasing $`g`$ or $`T_c/T_d`$. In the range of $`g<0.2`$ or $`T_c/T_d<0.0076`$, it has a constant BCS value. In fact, this range corresponds to the case of low $`T_c`$ superconductors(LTS). In the range of $`0.5<g<1.5`$ it increases almost in a linear of $`g`$, and has a saturated value of $`2`$ for large $`g`$.

In the sprit of Bardeen, the normal fluid density $`\rho _n(T)=\rho \rho _s(T)`$, within the pairing theory, may be written as

$$\rho _n(T)/\rho =2_0^{\mathrm{}}d(\omega /T)n(\omega )f(\omega /T)\left[1f(\omega /T)\right],$$
(8)
where $`f(x)`$ is the usual Fermi function $`1/[1+exp(x)]`$ and the density of states $`n(\omega )=N(\omega )/N(0)`$ is given by

$`n(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`q(\omega /T_d)+n_{\mathrm{BCS}}(\omega )r(\omega /T_d),`$ (9)
$`q(\omega /T_d)`$ $`=`$ $`(2/\pi )\mathrm{tan}^1(\omega /T_d),`$ (11)
$`r(\omega /T_d)`$ $`=`$ $`(2/\pi )\mathrm{tan}^1[n_{\mathrm{BCS}}(\omega )T_d/\omega ],`$ (13)
$`n_{\mathrm{BCS}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`Re\{\omega /(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{1/2}\}.`$ (15)
Physically, $`\rho _n(T)`$ would be resulted from the single particle excitation not pairs. Thus, the factor $`f(x)`$ in Eq. (8) is the occupation probability of the state $`|k>`$ and the factor $`[1f(x)]`$ is the unoccupation probability of the partner state, say, $`|k>`$ , and vice versa, respectively. The factor $`2`$ comes from the spin sum. The states of Eq. (11) are reflections of states being not participated in pairings. A word of caution is in order. The $`\omega `$ is the dynamical energy which has the kinetic as well as interaction parts. Physically, the sum of spectral weights outside $`T_d<|ϵ_k|`$, result in the states of Eq. (11). Thus, the low energy states are realized. In other words, carriers which do not participate in pairings yield the linear T dependence of $`\rho _n(T)`$ at low $`T`$. In fact, these states results in the linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\lambda (T)`$ at low T. To see this, by inserting Eq. (11) into Eq. (8), one can get the variation of $`\lambda (T)`$ at low $`T`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /\lambda (0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _n(T)/\rho =(T/T_c)(T_c/T_d)(2/\pi )\mathrm{ln}2,`$ (16)
similar to the result by d-wave picture,

$`[\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /\lambda (0)]_d=(T/T_c)(T_c/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\mathrm{ln}2`$ (17)
via $`n_d(\omega )=\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the maximum value (anti-node) of the order parameter.

For the quantitative calculations of $`\lambda (T)`$, we have determined $`T_c/T_d`$ or $`g`$ \[Eq. (6)\] via Eq. (16), by taking the slope of $`[\lambda (0)/\lambda (T)]^2`$ near zero temperature. Once $`g`$ or $`T_c/T_d`$ is set, no adjustable parameter is used in our calculations of Eq. (8).

As is shown in Fig. 5, we have obtained good agreements between calculations and data of BSCCO by Lee et al, HBCCO by Panagopoulos et al and LSCO by Panagopoulos et al, and Sr214 by Bonalde et al, respectively. We picked up not all of data points in the papers for clarity. Bonalde et al  reported that their data at low $`T`$ vary as $`T^2`$ which are resulted from scatterings by impurities or defects. In a finite $`T_d`$ picture, the impurity scatterings make some states at the Fermi level not participate in pairings, and result in the $`T^2`$ term in $`\lambda (T)`$ at low T .

However, as shown in Fig. 6, we have obtained poor agreement near $`T_c`$ between calculation and data of YBCO by Hardy et al  and anisotropic data of YBCO by Kamal et al. The YBCO b case is good.

The notion of a finite $`T_d`$ results in the incomplete condensation at zero temperature. By considering the sum rule, we can calculate the fraction of states, $`R`$, being not participated in pairings as

$`R(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}}\left[n_{BCS}(\omega )n(w)\right]𝑑\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Delta }}n(\omega )𝑑\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`(2/\pi )tan^1(z)(1/z\pi )ln(1+z^2),`$ (20)
where $`z=\mathrm{\Delta }/T_d=[\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c](T_c/T_d)`$ which is a function of $`g`$ or $`T_c/T_d`$.

In Fig. 7 is shown $`R(z)`$ as a function of $`g`$. In the range of $`g<0.2`$ or $`T_c/T_d<0.0076`$, $`R(z)`$ is negligible. As stated before, this range corresponds to the case of LTS. Thus, the linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\lambda (T)`$ at low $`T`$ is hardly observed in LTS.

In summary, even though the model of Eq. (4) is ideal, the quantitative calculations account very well for data for all $`T`$ ranges without any adjustable parameter, except for YBCO data near $`T_c`$. Perhaps, the Fermi surface effect would play an important role for $`\lambda (T)`$ in the case of YBCO. Of course, the retardation and non-local effects should be taken into account as well for improvement. In all, the calculations are quite satisfactory and theoretically sound. We suggest the pairing interaction energy range $`T_d`$ in HTS may be of the order of $`12`$ times $`T_c`$. The linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\lambda (T)`$ at low $`T`$ does not imply nodes in the order parameter, contrary to general belief.

In the spirit of a finite $`T_d`$, it is recently shown that the spinless impurity scatterings suppress $`T_c`$ and destroy superconductivity. Some states at the Fermi level are shown not to participate in pairings when there are scattering centers such as impurities, and result in the linear $`T`$ term in the specific heat at low $`T`$. The quantitative calculations account well for the reduction of Tc  and the specific heat data  in the Zn-doped YBCO, respectively.

We thank KRISS members for their warm hospitalities at KRISS. Specially JWL thanks Dr. Y. H. Lee for his kindness and SBN thanks Drs J. C. Park and Y. K. Park for various discussions. This work is supported in part by KOFST.


text:
# 1 Diffusive Shock Acceleration

## 1 Diffusive Shock Acceleration

Relativistic plasma flow velocities are found in many astrophysical objects such as in AGN Jets and their Central Engines where transient shocks are thought to be formed and diffusive particle acceleration could potentially occur. The gamma flows at these sites are approximatelly 5-10 Lorentz Factors. Gamma Ray Burst(GRB) plasma flows also appear to have ultra-relativistic velocities where $`\gamma 1001000`$. Particularly Waxman (1995) and Vietri (1995,1997 and 1998) have noted (for the case of CRBs) the fact that diffusive acceleration at non-relativistic shocks is not fast enough to produce the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays (HECR) observed. Vietri (1995) especially, pointed out that simulations of Quenby $`\&`$ Lieu (1989) were the first to recognize a considerable enhancement in the acceleration rate of a factor$``$13, for relativistic shocks of $`\gamma `$$``$3.

Our current investigation for highly relativistic plasma flows, shows a dramatic acceleration rate enhancement, and since the Lorentz boosting scales as $`\gamma ^2`$ (especially in the first cycle) this effect is important for the Vietri’s HECR theoretical predictions. It is known that the chief characteristics of diffusive shock acceleration operating in one dimensional astrophysical non-relativistic shocks are the $`\gamma ^2`$ differential spectra for particle Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ when the shock compression ratio is 4 and the analytically derived acceleration time constant is given by,

$$t_{acc}=\frac{c}{u_1u_2}\left[\frac{\lambda _1}{u_1}+\frac{\lambda _2}{_2}\right]$$
(1)
where, $`\lambda `$ is mean free path, u is flow speed and 1 and 2 refer to upstream and downstream. For relativistic flows (eg. AGN jets, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }510`$ and GRB fire-balls $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1001000`$) the fractional energy increase for a single shock crossing is $`(1V^2/c^2)^{0.5}`$ where V is the relativistic difference in flow velocities across the shock, but the analytical estimate of cycle time does not change from the non-relativistic case and so we expect a speed-up of acceleration relative to the non-relativistic estimate. However, because of the large anisotropies due to the relativistic flows, a computational approach and careful simulations are necessary in the high $`\gamma `$ regime. Several studies have been made by few authors, but still, there is a controversy about the shape of the spectrum, the rate of energy gain and the time constant for acceleration. However, they are crucial to models of AGN Jet and Central Engine cosmic ray acceleration as well as the GRB particle production and acceleration. In this paper we present a computational study of relativistic diffusive shock acceleration for up to $`\gamma `$$`50`$ and try to investigate the acceleration behaviour at these highly relativistic regimes.

### 1.1 Numerical Simulations

In these simulations we study the acceleration of particles by a numerical Monte Carlo approach. A guiding centre approximation is used for the particle’s propagation in a 1D geometry and the shocks assumed to be ”parallel”, either because that is the field configuration or turbulence removes ”reflection” at the interface. We keep a compression ratio of 4 in order to be able to be able to compare directly with non-relativistic situations and consider large angle isotropic scattering in the plasma rest frames according to,

$$Prob\left(z\right)exp\left(z/\lambda \left|cos\theta \right|\right)$$
(2)
for parallel mfp $`\lambda `$, proportional to rigidity and pitch angle $`\theta `$. Gallant & Achterberg (2000) distinguish a small angle scattering regime where $`\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ for scattering models where the field is either uniform or consists of cells of randomly orientated uniform field. For the time being we are not in this limit, but consider the cases where the particle coming upstream from the shock moves a distance $`\lambda `$ with only a small net total deflection, during which time it must be travelling close to the shock normal, otherwise it could not penetrate upstream against the relativistic convective flow. Then a turbulent field or flow discontinuity is encountered and deflection takes place in a time $`r_g/c`$ where $`r_g`$ is the gyroradius. Provided $`\lambda >r_g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, significant deflection may take place before the particle is swept back to the shock. Lorentz transforms are used between frames on shock passage and the results recorded just downstream in the shock frame. In this numerical investigation and in order to keep the statistics of the results as reliable as possible, a particle ’splitting’ technique is used. The particles injection is upstream, where approximatelly $`10^6`$ particles have been used for the completion of the code runnings.

Results for isotropic scattering with an upstream $`\mathrm{\Gamma }50`$ are shown in figure 1(L) where the energy scale is measured by the particle

Lorentz factor, together with the best fitting power law. Clearly other factors, especially trapping, limit the actual high energy extent of the spectrum. The plateau-like structure corresponds to successive cycles of acceleration. Our calculations show that roughly $`80\%`$ of all particles are lost downstream each cycle, because of the high plasma flows. The mean energy gain per cycle on cycle 1 for isotropic scattering is 80 and on cycle 3 is 3200, to be compared with the square of the upstream flow gamma factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{up}^2`$=2500. This is seen in figure 1(R) where injection is at $`\gamma =50`$. Figure 2(L) shows the ratio of the computational to the non-relativistic, analytical acceleration time constants as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{up}`$, for isotropic scattering and figure 2(R) for small-angle scattering. For small-angle scattering, the mean free path to scatter $`\pi /2`$ is used in the analytical expression. As it may be seen, a substantial ’speed-up’ is noticed in both cases and along with our results of the very large energy boosting in consecutive shock cycles, which establishes the allowed upper energy limit in GRB fireballs, Vietri’s theory is been supported regarding the predictions of the origin of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays from GRB fireball sites.

## 2 AGN Accretion Shock Model

A preliminary application of the speed up and spectral hardening confirmed above has already been given by Battersby et al (1995). Central accretion shocks for infall to AGN black holes must be sporadic because stable shocks occur at a given position for a very specific plasma angular momentum and internal energy (Molteni, Lanzafame & Chakrabarti 1994). We expect quasi-perpendicular shocks to form out to 100 Schwarzchild radii because quasi-keplerian plasma motion should be taken into account but is neglected in Battersby et al (1995). We estimate the lifetimes as given by free-fall and get ’de Hoffmann-Teller’ frame speeds $`0.5c`$ Using the above calculations of speed-up and spectral slope and allowing a realistic increase in the mean free path above cyclotron radius yields the acceleration time and spectrum. The input particle total energy and magnetic field is estimated assuming $`L_{Xray}=0.05L_{Edd}`$ is in equipartition with magnetic energy and particle energy, $`BR^1`$ and the Stecker-Salamon photon spectrum is used. Proton scattering in the field and convection into black hole is followed for radial infall and quasi-keplerian plasma motion. The secondary cascade following initial acceleration and propagation is followed. High energy protons cool preferentially on photons while low energy protons cool preferentially on background protons. pion decay into $`\gamma ,\nu `$ and $`e^\pm `$ components and also a $`\gamma `$ cascade, synchrotron photon production and $`\gamma \gamma `$ interactions result. Battersby et al (1995) concentrate on neutrino production from p gamma interactions. These interactions are more important than pp at high energies. They find that a 1 $`km^2`$ high energy neutrino telescope is really required to have a good chance of detecting fluxes from a source like 3C273 or the background from a large number of sources.

## 3 Conclusions

A Monte Carlo numerical investigation has been reported on the test particle limit of parallel diffusive shock acceleration. Very high gamma flow astrophysical plasmas have been used up to $`\gamma _{up}`$ $`50`$ which are relevant to AGN Jet and Central Engines shocks as well as the GRB ultra-relativistic enviromments. A dramatic $`\gamma ^2`$ (especially for the first cycle) energy boosting has been observed and a significant acceleration rate efficiency has been reported. Especially, both these results support (and been supported by) Vietri’s and Waxman’s models and theoretical predictions on the problem of HECR origin from GRBs. This crucial issue though, of ultra-relativistic diffusive shock acceleration, needs further investigation as many other parameters are needed to be included within the simulation codes in order for the model and the results to be as realistic as possible in connection with the observations and the theoretical predictions.

Much of the secondary output from the AGN originates from sporadic shocks near 100 Schwarzschild radii. pp interactions are less important than p$`\gamma `$ in neutrino production except at low energy. $`\gamma `$s from synchrotron dominate $`\gamma `$s from $`\pi `$s up to 1 TeV, but the GeV to TeV $`\gamma `$ flux is a factor 100 less than observation of 3C273 output, suggesting some ”Beaming” or amplification mechanism is required if central accretion shocks are the main source. We expect significant fluxes from $`<100R_{Sch}`$ if the short period fluctuations observed are related to black-hole physics. The $`100R_{Sch}`$ proton output $`0.1`$ primary proton output $``$ 1 PeV from the central shocks. The neutron output $`0.01`$ proton primary output.
Acknowledgments: A.Meli wishes to thank M.Ostrowki for valuable comments (personal contact).

## 4 References

Baring, M.G, $`26^{th}`$ ICRC, Salt Lake City, USA, Proceedings, 1999
Battersby, S. J. R., Drolias, B., Quenby, J. J. AstPhys 4, 151B (1995)
Bednarz, J. & Ostrowski, M. MNRAS 283, 447-456 (1996)
Bednarz J., MNRAS 315L.37B (2000)
Bell, A.R., MNRAS 182,147-156 (1978)
Bell, A.R , MNRAS 182,443-455 (1978)
Blanfdord, R.D $`\&`$ Ostriker, J.P ApJ 211, 793-808 (1977)
Ellison, D.C.,& Jones, F.C., & Reynolds,S.P., ApJ 360, 702 (1990a)
Gallant, Y.A., & Achterberg A., MNRAS 305L, 6G (1999)
Jones, F.C, Ellison, D.C Sp.Sc.Rev. 58, 259-346 1991)
Kirk,J.G., & Schneider, P., ApJ 315, 425 (1987a)
Kirk, J.G, $`\&`$ Schneider, P. AJ 322, 256-265 (1987)
Kirk,J.G., & Webb, G.M., ApJ 331, 336 (1988)
Lieu, R., & Quenby, J.J., ApJ 350, 692 (1990)
Meszaros,P., & Rees, M.J., ApJ 405, 278 (1993)
Molteni, D., Lanzafame, G., & Chakrabarti, S. K. ApJ, 421, 211 (1994)
Ostrowski, M.,MNRAS 249, 551-559(1991)
Ostrowski, M. & Schlickeiser R., Sol.Ph. 167, 381-394(1996)
Peacock, J.A, MNRAS 196, 135-152(1981)
Quenby, J.J., & Lieu, R., Nature 342, 654(1989)
Quenby, J.J., Sp.Sc.R. 37, 201-237(1984)
Vietri, M., ApJ 453, 883(1995)
Vietri, M., Phys.Rev.Lett. 78, 4328V(1997)
Vietri, M., ApJLet 488, L105(1998)
Waxman,E., Phys.Rev.Lett. 75, 386 (1995)