text:
# Thermal transport through a mesoscopic weak link

## I introduction

Mesoscopic phonon systems are relatively unexplored compared with their electronic counterparts. An exception is the recent work on thermal conductance quantization in freely suspended one-dimensional dielectric wires, where the thermal conductance was found to be $`\pi k_\mathrm{B}^2T/6\mathrm{}`$ per transmitted vibrational mode. This behavior parallels the well known electrical conductance quantization in units of $`e^2/2\pi \mathrm{}`$ per (spin-resolved) channel in one-dimensional mesoscopic conductors. Electrical conductance quantization and many other aspects of mesoscopic transport in one-dimensional Fermi liquids, as well as edge-state transport in integral quantum Hall effect systems, can be understood with the Landauer and Landauer-Büttiker formalisms.

The conventional Landauer formula describes charge transport in mesoscopic conductors in the limit where there exists one or more propagating channels. Another important transport regime is the weak tunneling limit, where the charge conductance is much less than $`e^2/2\pi \mathrm{}`$ and, as shown by Schrieffer et al., is determined by the density-of-states (DOS) obtained from the one-particle Green’s function.

The thermal analog of the weak tunneling limit has not been addressed theoretically and is interesting for several reasons. First, a microscopic quantum description of thermal conduction through weak links is crucial for understanding energy dissipation in nanostructures such as nanoparticles, nanotubes, molecular circuits, and nanometer-scale electromechanical systems. As we shall demonstrate, the classical theory of thermal conduction, based on the heat equation, is entirely inapplicable to these systems. Second, thermal conduction through a weak link connected to a macroscopic solid turns out to be a sensitive local probe of the surface vibrational DOS of that solid, suggesting the possibility of a surface microscopy based on a scanning thermal probe.

In this paper we calculate the rate $`I_{\mathrm{th}}`$ of thermal energy flow between two macroscopic bodies, each in thermodynamic equilibrium, and joined by a weak mechanical link. The weak link may consist of one or more chemical bonds, or by a narrow “neck” of dielectric material, both of which can be accurately modeled by a harmonic spring of stiffness $`K`$. We obtain a general expression for the thermal current that can be regarded as a thermal analog of the well-known formula, derived by Schrieffer et al., for the electrical current through a resistive barrier. Our result can also be interpreted as an application of the thermal Landauer formula in the weak tunneling limit, with the energy-dependent phonon transmission probability calculated microscopically.

Our work is also related to the classic work of Little on the thermal boundary resistance at an interface between two dielectrics, a solid-solid analog of the Kapitza resistance between solids and superfluid Helium caused by phonon scattering at the interface. A tunneling-Hamiltonian approach similar to ours has been applied to the Kapitza resistance problem by Sheard and Toombs. In our geometry, however, the thermal resistance comes from scattering at the weak link, and the thermal current depends on the elastic properties of the link and does not vanish if the solids are identical. Heat transport in mesoscopic junctions has been studied recently with the scattering approach by Cross and Lifshitz. Thermal transport through weak links has also been studied in conductors, including the two-dimensional electron gas and one-dimensional Luttinger liquids.

The organization of our paper is as follows: In the next section we describe in detail our mesoscopic weak-link model, and in Section III we define and calculate the local vibrational DOS for the macroscopic solids. A general expression for the thermal current is derived in Section IV. Some experimental implications are discussed in Section V, where we calculate the thermal conductance through a nanometer-scale junction in Si. Section VI contains a discussion of the differences between electron and phonon tunneling, and also of the role of phonon phase coherence in this work.

## II mesoscopic weak link

The model we consider is as follows: Two macroscopic solids, L and R, are held at fixed temperatures $`T_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{R}`$. The two bodies are assumed to be electrically insulating, so that thermal energy is carried only by phonons. The Hamiltonian of the isolated solids is (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$H_0=H_\mathrm{L}+H_\mathrm{R},$$
(1)
where

$$H_I\underset{n}{}\omega _{In}a_{In}^{}a_{In},I=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}.$$
(2)
The $`a_{nI}^{}`$ and $`a_{nI}`$ are phonon creation and annihilation operators for the left and right sides, satisfying

$$[a_{nI},a_{n^{}I^{}}^{}]=\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{II^{}}$$
(3)
and

$$[a_{nI},a_{n^{}I^{}}]=[a_{nI}^{},a_{n^{}I^{}}^{}]=0.$$
(4)
The vibrational modes of the isolated bodies are labeled by $`n`$ and have energies $`\omega _{In}`$. Our analysis is valid for any $`\omega _{In}`$. The mesoscopic weak-link model is illustrated in Fig. 1.

The two macroscopic solids are connected by a weak mechanical link, which we model by a harmonic spring with stiffness $`K`$,

$$\delta H=\frac{1}{2}K\left(u_\mathrm{L}^zu_\mathrm{R}^z\right)^2.$$
(5)
Here $`u_I^z`$ is the normal component of the displacement field at the surface of body $`I`$ at the point of connection to the weak link, with the surface normal taken to be in the $`z`$ direction. The surface displacements can be expanded in a basis of phonon annihilation and creation operators as

$$u_I^z=\underset{n}{}\left(h_{In}a_{In}+h_{In}^{}a_{In}^{}\right),I=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}$$
(6)
where the $`h_{In}`$ are model-dependent complex coefficients. The $`h_{In}`$ appropriate for the stress-free planar surface of a semi-infinite isotropic elastic continuum are given below.

As discussed above, we are interested in systems where the mechanical interaction between the two bodies is actually caused by one or more atomic bonds, or by a narrow “neck” of dielectric material. Our harmonic spring model correctly accounts for the longitudinal (normal to the surface) elastic forces between the solids, but neglects any transverse or torsional interaction. Although transverse and torsional forces can be included by a straightforward generalization of our model, they are often much smaller than the longitudinal coupling.

The macroscopic bodies act as thermal reservoirs, and are taken to be ideal thermal conductors. In particular, they are assumed to be harmonic \[see Eq. (2)\]. Therefore, the thermal resistance we calculate is caused entirely by the scattering of phonons at the junction between the reservoirs and the weak link, and by the finite transmission probability through the link.

## III local vibrational dos

In what follows we will need the local vibrational DOS (or, more precisely, local spectral density) of the bulk solids, evaluated at the point of contact with the weak link. These can be obtained from the retarded surface-displacement correlation functions

$$D_I(t)i\theta (t)[u_I^z(t),u_I^z(0)]_0$$
(7)
for the isolated macroscopic bodies L and R. Using (6) leads to

$$D_I(t)=2\theta (t)\underset{n}{}|h_{In}|^2\mathrm{sin}(\omega _{In}t).$$
(8)
The local DOS $`N_I(\omega )`$ is then defined in terms of the Fourier transform of (7),

$$N_I(\omega )\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}D_I(\omega ).$$
(9)
Then we have

$$N_I(\omega )=\underset{n}{}|h_{In}|^2[\delta (\omega \omega _{In})\delta (\omega +\omega _{In})].$$
(10)
In many cases of interest the local spectral density is an algebraic function of energy at low energies,

$$N_I(\omega )\omega ^\alpha ,$$
(11)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant. For example, $`\alpha =1`$ at the planar surface of a semi-infinite isotropic elastic continuum (see below).

## IV thermal current

We now calculate the heat flow between the two bodies joined by the weak link. The complete system is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=H_0+\delta H.$$
(12)
We define a thermal current operator $`\widehat{I}_{\mathrm{th}}`$ according to

$$\widehat{I}_{\mathrm{th}}_tH_\mathrm{R}=i[H,H_\mathrm{R}].$$
(13)
The expectation value of $`\widehat{I}_{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the energy per unit time flowing from the left to the right body.

Writing the interaction (5) as

$$\delta H=\frac{1}{2}K\underset{nn^{}}{}(A_{\mathrm{L}n}A_{\mathrm{R}n})(A_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}A_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}),$$
(14)
where

$$A_{In}h_{In}a_{In}+h_{In}^{}a_{In}^{},$$
(15)
we find that the thermal current operator then takes the form

$$\widehat{I}_{\mathrm{th}}=\frac{iK}{2}\underset{nn^{}}{}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}\{A_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}A_{\mathrm{L}n^{}},h_{\mathrm{R}n}a_{\mathrm{R}n}h_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}a_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}\},$$
(16)
where $`\{,\}`$ is an anticommutator.

The equation of motion for the density matrix in the interaction representation is

$$_t\rho (t)=i[\rho (t),\delta H(t)],$$
(17)
where

$$O(t)e^{iH_0t}Oe^{iH_0t}.$$
(18)
From (17) we find that the nonequilibrium thermal current to leading order is

$$I_{\mathrm{th}}(t)=i_0^t𝑑t^{}[\delta H(t^{}),\widehat{I}_{\mathrm{th}}(t)]_0.$$
(19)
Evaluating Eq. (19) leads to our principal result (with factors of $`\mathrm{}`$ reinstated)

$$I_{\mathrm{th}}=\frac{2\pi K^2}{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵϵN_\mathrm{L}(ϵ)N_\mathrm{R}(ϵ)\left[n_\mathrm{L}(ϵ)n_\mathrm{R}(ϵ)\right].$$
(20)
Here $`n_\mathrm{L}(ϵ)`$ and $`n_\mathrm{R}(ϵ)`$ are Bose distribution functions

$$n(ϵ)1/\left(e^{ϵ/k_\mathrm{B}T}1\right)$$
(21)
with temperatures $`T_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{R}`$. The details leading to Eq. (20) are given in Appendix A.

Our result (20) shows that the thermal current between a dielectric held at zero temperature and a second dielectric at temperature $`T`$ will be a power-law function of $`T`$, in striking contrast with nonmesoscopic thermal transport. For example, assuming a spectral density of the form (11) leads at low temperature to

$$I_{\mathrm{th}}T^{2\alpha +2},$$
(22)
where $`T`$ is the temperature of the second body.

The linear thermal conductance, defined by

$$G_{\mathrm{th}}\underset{T_\mathrm{L}T_\mathrm{R}}{lim}\frac{I_{\mathrm{th}}}{T_\mathrm{L}T_\mathrm{R}},$$
(23)
is given by

$$G_{\mathrm{th}}=\frac{2\pi K^2}{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵϵN_\mathrm{L}(ϵ)N_\mathrm{R}(ϵ)\frac{n(ϵ)}{T}.$$
(24)
This expression, along with Eq. (11), shows that the linear thermal conductance between two dielectrics held at a common temperature $`T`$, varies at low temperature as a power-law in $`T`$,

$$G_{\mathrm{th}}T^{2\alpha +1},$$
(25)
where $`\alpha `$ is the exponent characterizing the power-law spectral density at low energies.

## V thermal conductance of nanometer-scale silicon junction

In this section we give a simple application of our theory to a structure consisting of a cylindrical neck of Si material connecting two semi-infinite Si crystals. To be in the mesoscopic regime we assume the dimensions of the weak link to be smaller than the phase-coherence length of the phonons. The geometry of the system we consider is shown schematically in Fig. 2.

To apply our formula (24) we need the phonon spectral density at the surface of Si, and also the effective spring constant of the link. The spectral density at energies much less than the Debye energy may be obtained from elasticity theory. This approach, which requires a detailed consideration of the vibrational modes of a semi-infinite elastic continuum with a stress-free planar surface, is carried out in Appendix B. We show there that the spectral density at the surface of Si is

$$N(ϵ)=Cϵ,C1.3\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{erg}^2.$$
(26)
Then using (24) we obtain

$$G_{\mathrm{th}}=(8\pi ^5K^2C^2k_\mathrm{B}^4/15\mathrm{})T^3.$$
(27)
The longitudinal stiffness of the mechanical link, a cylinder of length $`l`$ and diameter $`d`$, is

$$K=\frac{\pi d^2}{4l}Y,$$
(28)
where $`Y`$ is Young’s modulus. For Si,

$$Y1.3\times 10^{12}\mathrm{dyn}\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(29)
and assuming link dimensions of $`l=10\mathrm{nm}`$ and $`d=1\mathrm{nm}`$, we obtain

$$K1.0\times 10^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(30)
and a thermal conductance of

$$G_{\mathrm{th}}=(9.5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{K}^4)T^3.$$
(31)
It is interesting to compare this result with the “classical” thermal conductance

$$G_{\mathrm{th}}^{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{\pi d^2}{4l}\kappa $$
(32)
of the cylindrical link, as predicted by the heat equation. Here $`\kappa `$ is the experimentally measured bulk thermal conductivity, itself a function of temperature, which for Si can be parameterized as

$$\kappa =\frac{10^7\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{K}^1}{0.16+1.5\times 10^3T+1.6\times 10^6T^2},$$
(33)
with temperature in $`K`$. Eq. (33) is accurate down to about 100K, below which one can use the low-temperature data of Ref. .

In Fig. 3 we plot our result (31) along with the classical thermal conductance (32) of the same Si link. As is evident, these are dramatically different at low temperatures. The large difference occurs because, as discussed in Section VI, the origin of the thermal resistance in the two formulas (31) and (32) are different. Although it is tempting to conclude that they begin to agree at higher temperature, this would be incorrect, because our theory breaks down at higher temperature and Eq. (31) is not valid up to the temperature where the curves meet.

There are four reasons why our analysis becomes invalid as the temperature is increased: The first is that we have assumed the weak link to be of mesoscopic dimensions. As the temperature increases, anharmonic interaction will eventually make the phonon phase-coherence length smaller than the size of the link. While an estimate of the phase-coherence length is beyond the scope of this work, the experiment of Schwab et al. suggests that in Si it is at least 1 nm at 1 K. The second is that our estimate of the spectral density is only valid for temperatures much less than the Debye temperature of Si, about 625 K. The third reason is that the leading-order perturbation theory we have used breaks down when $`G_{\mathrm{th}}`$ approaches the thermal conductance $`\pi k_\mathrm{B}^2T/6\mathrm{}`$ corresponding to one propagating channel, shown as a thin dotted line in Fig. 3. And the fourth reason is that we have neglected any electronic contribution to $`G_{\mathrm{th}}`$, which is correct only when $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$ is much less than the Si band gap. Taking all of these factors into consideration suggests that Eq. (31) is probably not quantitatively correct beyond about 10 K.

## VI discussion

In this paper we have studied the thermal analog of the weak tunneling limit of charge conduction—which might be regarded as phonon “tunneling”—and find many similarities to electron tunneling. There are a few important differences, however.

Electron tunneling, as it is usually defined, involves the passage of an electron through a classically forbidden region. In the thermal case, a phonon of energy $`ϵ`$ is never in a region that does support a mode at that energy. For example, the harmonic spring employed in Eq. (5) can support a single propagating phonon channel, but phonons incident on the weak link are mostly reflected back into the macroscopic dielectrics. Whereas the tunneling rate of an electron (at a fixed energy $`ϵ`$) through a forbidden region of thickness $`l`$ varies exponentially with $`l`$ in the weak-tunneling limit, the thickness dependence in the phonon tunneling case is different. In the example discussed in Section V, the thermal conductance varies with length $`l`$ of the bridge as $`l^2`$, because the effective spring constant (28) of the bridge becomes softer with increasing $`l`$.

We have demonstrated that the classical theory of thermal conduction, based on the heat equation and on the concept of a local thermal conductivity, is entirely inapplicable to mesoscopic dielectrics. In a mesoscopic dielectric, thermal resistance is caused by elastic scattering of phonons, whereas in an infinite, disorder-free crystal it is caused by inelastic scattering due to anharmonicity. In the example of Section V, the quantum result (27) is determined by the mechanical properties of the bridge material, through the elastic modulus $`Y`$, whereas the classical result (32) is determined by the bridge material’s bulk thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Research Corporation. It is a pleasure to thank Steve Lewis for useful discussions.

## A general formula for the thermal current

Evaluating (19) we find

$`I_{\mathrm{th}}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nn^{}mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}\mathrm{Re}`$ $``$ $`\{A_{\mathrm{L}m}(t^{})A_{\mathrm{R}m}(t^{}),[A_{\mathrm{L}m^{}}(t^{})A_{\mathrm{R}m^{}}(t^{}),(A_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}(t)A_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}(t))`$ (A1)
$`\times `$ $`(h_{\mathrm{R}n}a_{\mathrm{R}n}(t)h_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}a_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}(t))]\}_0,`$ (A2)
and, after further simplification,

$`I_{\mathrm{th}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nn^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^t}dt^{}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}\mathrm{Re}(\{A_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}(t),A_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}(t^{})\}+\{A_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}(t),A_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}(t^{})\})[h_{\mathrm{R}n}a_{\mathrm{R}n}(t)h_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}a_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}(t),A_{\mathrm{R}n}(t^{})]`$ (A3)
$`+`$ $`\{h_{\mathrm{R}n}a_{\mathrm{R}n}(t)h_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}a_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}(t),A_{\mathrm{R}n}(t^{})\}([A_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}(t),A_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}(t^{})]+[A_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}(t),A_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}(t^{})])_0,`$ (A4)
where we have used the fact that the commutators are c-numbers. The required thermal expectation values are

$$\{A_{In}(t),A_{In}(t^{})\}_0=2|h_{In}|^2\left[1+2n_I(\omega _{In})\right]\mathrm{cos}\omega _{In}(tt^{}),$$
(A5)
$$[A_{In}(t),A_{In}(t^{})]_0=2i|h_{In}|^2\mathrm{sin}\omega _{In}(tt^{}),$$
(A6)
$$[h_{\mathrm{R}n}a_{\mathrm{R}n}(t)h_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}a_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}(t),A_{\mathrm{R}n}(t^{})]_0=2|h_{\mathrm{R}n}|^2\mathrm{cos}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}(tt^{}),$$
(A7)
and

$$\{h_{\mathrm{R}n}a_{\mathrm{R}n}(t)h_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}a_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}(t),A_{\mathrm{R}n}(t^{})\}_0=2i|h_{\mathrm{R}n}|^2\left[1+2n_\mathrm{R}(\omega _{\mathrm{R}n})\right]\mathrm{sin}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}(tt^{}).$$
(A8)
These lead to

$`I_{\mathrm{th}}(t)=2K^2{\displaystyle \underset{nn^{}}{}}`$ $`\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}`$ $`|h_{\mathrm{R}n}|^2{\displaystyle _0^t}dt^{}(|h_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}|^2[1+2n_\mathrm{L}(\omega _{\mathrm{L}n^{}})]\mathrm{cos}\omega _{\mathrm{L}n^{}}(tt^{})\mathrm{cos}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}(tt^{})`$ (A9)
$`+`$ $`|h_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}|^2\left[1+2n_\mathrm{R}(\omega _{\mathrm{R}n^{}})\right]\mathrm{cos}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}(tt^{})\mathrm{cos}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n^{}}(tt^{})`$ (A10)
$``$ $`|h_{\mathrm{L}n^{}}|^2\left[1+2n_\mathrm{R}(\omega _{\mathrm{R}n})\right]\mathrm{sin}\omega _{\mathrm{L}n^{}}(tt^{})\mathrm{sin}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}(tt^{})`$ (A11)
$``$ $`|h_{\mathrm{R}n^{}}|^2[1+2n_\mathrm{R}(\omega _{\mathrm{R}n})]\mathrm{sin}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n}(tt^{})\mathrm{sin}\omega _{\mathrm{R}n^{}}(tt^{})).`$ (A12)
Here $`n_\mathrm{L}(ϵ)`$ and $`n_\mathrm{R}(ϵ)`$ are Bose distribution functions \[see Eq. (21)\] with temperatures $`T_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{R}`$. Next we make a change of variables $`t^{}tt^{}`$, take the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit, and include a convergence factor to regularize the long-time behavior of the resulting integrals. Finally, using the identities

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{cos}\omega t\mathrm{cos}\omega ^{}te^{\zeta t}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left[\delta (\omega \omega ^{})+\delta (\omega +\omega ^{})\right]$$
(A13)
and

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega ^{}te^{\zeta t}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left[\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\delta (\omega +\omega ^{})\right],$$
(A14)
where $`\zeta `$ is a positive infinitesimal, and reinstating factors of $`\mathrm{}`$, leads to Eq. (20).

In Eqs. (20) and (24) we have introduced an energy-dependent DOS,

$$N_I(ϵ)\underset{n}{}|h_{In}|^2[\delta (ϵ\mathrm{}\omega _{In})\delta (ϵ+\mathrm{}\omega _{In})]$$
(A15)
which has dimensions of (length)<sup>2</sup>/energy. In a homogeneous elastic continuum of mass density $`\rho `$ and volume $`V`$, $`N(ϵ)`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{}^2/2\rho ϵ`$ times the thermodynamic DOS per volume, $`V^1_n\delta (ϵϵ_n).`$

## B surface DOS of silicon

In this appendix we calculate the local phonon DOS at the stress-free planar surface of a semi-infinite isotropic elastic continuum, following closely the work of Ezawa , and use this to estimate the DOS at the surface of Si. The substrate is assumed to occupy the space $`z0`$. The vibrational modes are labeled by $`n=(m,𝐊,c),`$ where $`m`$ is a branch index taking the values SH, $`\pm `$, 0, and R, $`𝐊`$ is a two-dimensional wave vector in the $`xy`$ plane, and $`c\omega /|𝐊|`$ is a parameter (continuous for all branches except $`m=\mathrm{R}`$) with dimensions of velocity. In contrast to Ref.  we shall use periodic boundary conditions in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, over a square of area $`𝒜`$.

In our analysis we will approximate Si as an isotropic elastic continuum with longitudinal and transverse sound velocities

$`v_\mathrm{l}`$ $`=`$ $`8.5\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (B1)
$`v_\mathrm{t}`$ $`=`$ $`5.9\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (B2)
and mass density

$`\rho =2.3\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3.`$ (B3)
It will be convenient to treat the Rayleigh branch ($`m=\mathrm{R}`$) separately, and then consider the branches with continuous $`c`$. In the Rayleigh case the displacement field is expanded as

$$𝐮=\underset{𝐊}{}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\rho c_\mathrm{R}|𝐊|}}\left[a_{\mathrm{R}𝐊}𝐟_{\mathrm{R}𝐊}+a_{\mathrm{R}𝐊}^{}𝐟_{\mathrm{R}𝐊}^{}\right],$$
(B4)
where the vibrational eigenfunctions $`𝐟_{\mathrm{R}𝐊}(𝐫)`$ have dimensions of $`L^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ and satisfy

$$d^3r𝐟_{\mathrm{R}𝐊}^{}𝐟_{\mathrm{R}𝐊^{}}=\delta _{\mathrm{𝐊𝐊}^{}}.$$
(B5)
Here $`c_\mathrm{R}=\xi v_\mathrm{t}`$, where $`\xi `$ is the root between 0 and 1 of

$$\xi ^68\xi ^4+8(32\nu ^2)\xi ^216(1\nu ^2)=0,$$
(B6)
and where

$$\nu v_\mathrm{t}/v_\mathrm{l}$$
(B7)
is the ratio of transverse and longitudinal bulk sound velocities. For Si, $`\nu =0.69`$ and $`\xi =0.88`$; hence

$`c_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`5.2\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1.`$ (B8)
The $`z`$ component of the vibrational eigenfunction at the point $`𝐫=0`$ on the surface is

$$f_\mathrm{R}^z(0)=\sqrt{\frac{2\gamma ^3\eta ^2|𝐊|}{(\gamma \eta )(\gamma \eta +2\gamma \eta ^2)𝒜}}\left[1\left(\frac{2}{1+\eta ^2}\right)\right],$$
(B9)
where

$$\gamma \sqrt{1(c_\mathrm{R}/v_\mathrm{l})^2}\mathrm{and}\eta \sqrt{1(c_\mathrm{R}/v_\mathrm{t})^2}.$$
(B10)
We find that the Rayleigh branch contributes to the local DOS (9) an amount (for positive $`\omega `$)

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{branch}:N(\omega )=\frac{g_1\mathrm{}\omega }{4\pi \rho c_\mathrm{R}^3},g_10.42.$$
(B11)
Note that $`g_1`$ generally depends on $`\nu `$, the value quoted in (B11) corresponding to Si.

Next we consider the branches with continuous $`c`$. Here

$$𝐮=\underset{𝐊}{}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑c\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\rho c|𝐊|}}\left[a_{m𝐊c}𝐟_{m𝐊c}+a_{m𝐊c}^{}𝐟_{m𝐊c}^{}\right],$$
(B12)
where the vibrational eigenfunctions have dimensions of $`L^{\frac{3}{2}}c^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and satisfy

$$d^3r𝐟_{m𝐊c}^{}𝐟_{m^{}𝐊^{}c^{}}=\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{𝐊𝐊}^{}}\delta (cc^{}).$$
(B13)
The range $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the $`c`$ integration in (B12) is $`[v_\mathrm{t},\mathrm{}]`$ for $`m=\mathrm{SH}`$, $`[v_\mathrm{l},\mathrm{}]`$ for $`m=\pm `$, and $`[v_\mathrm{t},v_\mathrm{l}]`$ for the $`m=0`$ branch. The contribution to the local DOS (for $`\omega 0`$) from these branches is given by

$$N(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\rho \omega }\underset{𝐊}{}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑c|f_{m𝐊c}^z(0)|^2\delta (\omega c|𝐊|).$$
(B14)
The SH modes are polarized in the $`xy`$ plane and therefore do not contribute to (9). The $`\pm `$ modes have surface amplitude

$`f_\pm ^z(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐊|}{4\pi c𝒜}}}[\pm \sqrt{\alpha }(1+A\pm iB)`$ (B15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{\beta }}}(1AiB)],`$ (B16)
where

$$A\frac{(\beta ^21)^24\alpha \beta }{(\beta ^21)^2+4\alpha \beta },$$
(B17)
$$B\frac{4\sqrt{\alpha \beta }(\beta ^21)}{(\beta ^21)^2+4\alpha \beta },$$
(B18)
$$\alpha \sqrt{(c/v_\mathrm{l})^21},\mathrm{and}\beta \sqrt{(c/v_\mathrm{t})^21},$$
(B19)
are all real functions of $`c`$. The $`m=\pm `$ branches together contribute an amount

$$\pm \mathrm{branches}:N(\omega )=\frac{g_2\mathrm{}\omega }{4\pi ^2\rho v_\mathrm{l}^3},g_21.0.$$
(B20)
The value for $`g_2`$, obtained by doing the integration over $`c`$ in Eq. (B14) numerically, is valid only for the value of $`\nu `$ corresponding to Si.

The $`m=0`$ branch has amplitude

$$f_0^z(0)=\sqrt{\frac{|𝐊|}{2\pi c\beta 𝒜}}\left[\gamma D+i(1E)\right],$$
(B21)
where

$$D\frac{4\beta (\beta ^21)^316i\gamma \beta ^2(\beta ^21)}{(\beta ^21)^4+16\gamma ^2\beta ^2}$$
(B22)
and

$$E\frac{(\beta ^21)^416\gamma ^2\beta ^28i\gamma \beta (\beta ^21)^2}{(\beta ^21)^4+16\gamma ^2\beta ^2}$$
(B23)
are complex-valued functions of $`c`$. This leads to a contribution

$$0\mathrm{branch}:N(\omega )=\frac{g_3\mathrm{}\omega }{8\pi ^2\rho v_\mathrm{t}^3},g_30.59.$$
(B24)
As before, $`g_3`$ is obtained numerically and assumes a value of $`\nu `$ valid for Si. Combining the three contributions (B11), (B20), and (B24), yields

$$N(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{4\pi ^2\rho }\left[\frac{g_1\pi }{c_\mathrm{R}^3}+\frac{g_2}{v_\mathrm{l}^3}+\frac{g_3}{2v_\mathrm{t}^3}\right].$$
(B25)
Using Eq. (B25) we obtain the estimate (26).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

When one is describing the evolution of some conservative system, one often considers a small perturbation or a small departure from a known solution of the system, and one generally arrives at a wave equation describing it. For a system with no explicit time dependence, one finds the normal mode solutions of the wave equation, satisfying certain boundary conditions, and one can then specify completely the perturbation as a linear superposition of these normal modes. In this case the operator associated to the perturbation is self-adjoint, the frequencies are real and the modes are complete.

However, when one deals with open dissipative systems, as it is the case in this paper, such an expansion is not possible. Instead of normal modes, one considers quasi normal modes (QNM) for which the frequencies are no longer pure real, signalling that the system is loosing energy. Although QNMs are in general not complete and therefore insufficient to fully describe the dynamics (see  and references therein), they nevertheless dominate the signal during the intermediate stages of the perturbation, being therefore extremely important.

QNMs of black holes were first numerically computed by Chandrasekhar and Detweiler , and subsequent numerical simulations  showed that the amplitude is dominated, at intermediate times, by a ringing signal due to the QNMs. Aside from the pure mathematical interest, black hole’s QNM calculations have been a very active field, and new methods, both numerical and analytical have been developed (see  for a review).

Up until very recently, all these works dealt with asymptotically flat spacetimes. In the past few years there has been a growing interest in asymptotically AdS (anti-de Sitter) spacetimes. Indeed, the Bañados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) black hole in 2+1-dimensions , as well as black holes in 3+1 dimensional AdS spacetimes with nontrivial topology (see, e.g. ), share with asymptotically flat spacetimes the common property of both having well defined charges at infinity, such as mass, angular momentum and electromagnetic charges, which makes them a good testing ground when one wants to go beyond asymptotic flatness. Another very interesting aspect of these black hole solutions is related to the AdS/CFT (Conformal Field Theory) conjecture . For instance, due to this AdS/CFT duality, quasi-normal frequencies in the BTZ black hole spacetime yield a prediction for the thermalization timescale in the dual two-dimensional CFT, which otherwise would be very difficult to compute directly. If one has, e.g., a 10-dimensional type IIB supergravity, compactified into a $`\mathrm{BTZ}\times S^3\times T^4`$ spacetime, the scalar field used to perturb the BTZ black hole, can be seen as a type IIB dilaton which couples to a CFT field operator $`𝒪`$. Now, the BTZ in the bulk corresponds to to a thermal sate in the boundary CFT, and thus the bulk scalar perturbation corresponds to a thermal perturbation with nonzero $`<𝒪>`$ in the CFT.

There has been some recent work on perturbations of Schwarszchild AdS spacetimes: Horowitz and Hubeny  studied the QNM frequencies for scalar perturbations in 4, 5 and 7 dimensions. Wang et al  studied scalar perturbations and QNMs on a Reissner-Nordstrom geometry, Chan and Mann  studied the QNM frequencies for a conformally coupled scalar field. For work on BTZ black holes such as entropy of scalar fields, see  and references therein.

In this paper we shall consider the QNMs of the 3D non-rotating BTZ black hole . The non-rotating BTZ black hole metric for a spacetime with negative cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{l^2}`$, is given by

$$ds^2=(M+\frac{r^2}{l^2})dt^2(M+\frac{r^2}{l^2})^1dr^2r^2d\varphi ^2,$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the black hole mass. The horizon radius is given by $`r_+=M^{1/2}l`$. We shall in what follows suppose that the scalar, electromagnetic and Weyl (neutrino) fields are a perturbation, i.e., they propagate in a spacetime with a BTZ metric. We will find that all these fields obey a wave equation and the associated QNM are exactly soluble yielding certain hypergeometric functions. As for the frequencies one has exact and explicit results for scalar and electromagnetic perturbations and numerical results for Weyl perturbations. To our knowledge, this is the first exact solution of QNMs for a specific model (see ).

In section 2 we give the wave equation for scalar and electromagnetic perturbations, and find the QNMs themselves and their frequencies. In section 3 we find the wave equation for Dirac and Weyl (neutrino) perturbations and analyze their QNMs.

## 2 Perturbing a black hole with scalar and electromagnetic fields

### 2.1 The wave equation

In this subsection we shall analyze the scalar and electromagnetic perturbations, which as we shall see yield the same effective potential, and thus the same wave equation.

First, for scalar perturbations, we are interested in solutions to the minimally coupled scalar wave equation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=0,$$
(2)
where, a comma stands for ordinary derivative and a semi-colon stands for covariant derivative. We make the following ansatz for the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{r^{1/2}}f(r)e^{i\omega t}e^{im\varphi },$$
(3)
where $`m`$ is the angular quantum number. It is useful to use the tortoise coordinate $`r_{}`$ defined by the equation $`dr_{}=\frac{dr}{M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}}`$, and given implicitly by

$$r=M^{1/2}\mathrm{coth}(M^{1/2}r_{}),$$
(4)
with $`r_{}ϵ]\mathrm{},0]`$, ($`r_{}=\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`r=r_+`$, and $`r_{}=0`$ corresponds to $`r=\mathrm{}`$).

With the ansatz (3) and the tortoise coordinate $`r_{}`$, equation (2) is given by,

$$\frac{d^2f(r)}{dr_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+(\omega V(r))f(r)=0,$$
(5)
where,

$$V(r)=\frac{3r^2}{4l^4}\frac{M}{2l^2}\frac{M^2}{4r^2}+\frac{m^2}{l^2}\frac{Mm^2}{r^2},$$
(6)
and it is implicit that $`r=r(r_{})`$. The rescaling to the the radial coordinate $`\widehat{r}=\frac{r}{l}`$ and to the frequency $`\widehat{\omega }=\omega l`$ is equivalent to take $`l=1`$ in (5) and (6), i.e., through this rescaling one measures the frequency and other quantities in terms of the AdS lengthscale $`l`$.

Now, the electromagnetic perturbations are governed by Maxwell’s equations

$$F_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}=0,\mathrm{with}F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\nu ,\mu }A_{\mu ,\nu },$$
(7)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Maxwell tensor and $`A_\mu `$ is the electromagnetic potential. As the background is circularly symmetric, it would be advisable to expand $`A_\mu `$ in 3-dimensional vector spherical harmonics (see  and ):

$`A_\mu (t,r,\varphi )=\left[\begin{array}{c}g^m(t,r)\\ h^m(t,r)\\ k^m(t,r)\end{array}\right]e^{im\varphi },`$ (11)
where $`m`$ is again our angular quantum number, and this decomposition is similar to the one in eigenfunctions of the total angular momentum in flat space .

However, going through the same steps one finds that the equation for electromagnetic perturbations is the same as the one for scalars, equation (5). The reason is that in three dimensions the 2-form Maxwell field $`F=F_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ is dual to a 1-form $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

### 2.2 QNMs for scalar and electromagnetic perturbations

Although a precise mathematical definition for a QNM can be given, as a pole in the Green’s function , we shall follow a more phenomenological point of view. A QNM describes the decay of the field in question. For the equation (5) it is defined as a corresponding solution which (i) near the horizon is purely ingoing, $`e^{i\omega r_{}}`$, corresponding to the existence of a black hole, and (ii) near infinity is purely outgoing, $`e^{i\omega r_{}}`$, (no initial incoming wave from infinity is allowed). One can see that the potential $`V(r)`$ diverges at infinity, so we require that the perturbation vanishes there (note that $`r=\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to a finite value of $`r_{}`$, namely $`r_{}=0`$). This vanishing of the solution at $`\mathrm{}`$ will only be possible for a discrete set of complex frequencies $`\omega `$ called quasinormal frequencies.

#### 2.2.1 Exact calculation

Puting $`l=1`$ and using the coordinate $`r_{}`$, the wave equation (5) takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2a(r)}{r_{}^2}}+`$
$`\left[\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3M}{4\mathrm{sinh}(M^{1/2}r_{})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4\mathrm{cosh}(M^{1/2}r_{})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{\mathrm{cosh}(M^{1/2}r_{})^2}}\right]a(r)=0.`$ (12)
On going to a new variable $`x=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(M^{1/2}r_{})^2}`$, $`xϵ[0,1]`$ equation (12) can also be written as

$$4x(1x)_x^2a+(46x)_x\psi +\overline{V}(x)a=0,$$
(13)
where

$$\overline{V}(x)=\frac{1}{4x(1x)}\left[\frac{4\omega ^2(1x)}{M}3xx(1x)\frac{4m^2x(1x)}{M}\right].$$
(14)
By changing to a new wavefunction y (see  for details), through

$$\psi \frac{(x1)^{3/4}}{x^{\frac{i\omega }{2M^{1/2}}}}y,$$
(15)
equation (13) can be put in the canonical form

$$x(1x)y^{\prime \prime }+[c(a+b+1)x]y^{}aby=0,$$
(16)
with $`a=1+\frac{im}{2M^{1/2}}\frac{i\omega }{2M^{1/2}}`$, $`b=1\frac{im}{2M^{1/2}}\frac{i\omega }{2M^{1/2}}`$, and $`c=1\frac{i\omega }{M^{1/2}}`$, which is a standard hypergeometric equation. The hypergeometric equation has three regular singular points at $`x=0,x=1,x=\mathrm{}`$, and has two independent solutions in the neighbourhood of each singular point. We are interested in solutions of (16) in the range , satisfying the boundary conditions of ingoing waves near $`x=0`$, and zero at $`x=1`$. One solution may be taken to be

$$y=(1x)^{cab}F(ca,cb,c;x),$$
(17)
where $`F`$ is a standard hypergeometric function of the second kind. Imposing $`y=0`$ at $`x=1`$, and recalling that $`F(a,b,c,1)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}`$, we get

$$a=n,\mathrm{or}b=n,$$
(18)
with $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, so that the quasi normal frequencies are given by

$$\omega =\pm m2iM^{1/2}(n+1).$$
(19)
The lowest frequencies, namely those with $`n=0`$ and $`m=0`$ had already been obtained by  and agree with our results.

#### 2.2.2 Numerical calculation of the frequencies

In order to check our results, we have also computed numerically the frequencies. By going to a new variable $`z=\frac{1}{r}`$, $`h=\frac{1}{r_+}`$ one can put the wave equation (5) in the form (see  for further details)

$$s(z)\frac{d^2}{dz^2}\mathrm{\Theta }+t(z)\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{\Theta }+u(z)\mathrm{\Theta }=0,$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=e^{i\omega r_{}}a(r)`$, $`s(z)=z^2Mz^4`$, $`t(z)=2Mz^32i\omega z^2`$ and $`u(z)=\frac{V}{M+\frac{1}{z^2}}`$, with $`V`$ given by (6). Now, $`z`$ $`ϵ`$ $`[0,h]`$ and one sees that in this range, the differential equation has only regular singularities at $`z=0`$ and $`z=h`$, so it has by Fuchs theorem a polynomial solution. We can now use Fröbenius method (see for example ) and look for a solution of the form $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\theta _{n(\omega )}(zh)^n(zh)^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is to be taken from the boundary conditions. Using the boundary condition of only ingoing waves at the horizon, one sees  that $`\alpha =0`$. So the final outcome is that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can be expanded as

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\theta _{n(\omega )}(zh)^n.`$ (21)
Imposing now the second boundary condition, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ at infinity ($`z=0`$) one gets

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\theta _{n(\omega )}(h)^n=0.$$
(22)
The problem is reduced to that of finding a numerical solution of the polynomial equation (22). The numerical roots for $`\omega `$ of equation (22) can be evaluated resorting to numerical computation. Obviously, one cannot determine the full sum in expression (22), so we have to determine a partial sum from 0 to N, say, and find the roots $`\omega `$ of the resulting polynomial expression. We then move onto the next term N+1 and determine the roots. If the method is reliable, the roots should converge. We have stopped our search when a 3 decimal digit precision was achieved. We have computed the lowest frequencies for some parameters of the angular quantum number $`m`$ and horizon radius $`r_+`$. The frequency is written as $`\omega =\omega _r+i\omega _i`$, where $`\omega _r`$ is the real part of the frequency and $`\omega _i`$ is its imaginary part.

In tables 1 and 2 we list the numerical values of the lowest QNM frequencies, for $`m=0`$ and $`m=1`$, respectively, and for selected values of the black hole mass.

| $`m=0`$ | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Numerical | | Exact | |
| $`M^{1/2}`$ | $`\omega _r`$ | $`\omega _i`$ | $`\omega _r`$ | $`\omega _i`$ |
| $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 0.000 | 2.000 | 0 | 2 |
| 5 | 0.000 | 10.000 | 0 | 10 |
| 10 | 0.000 | 20.000 | 0 | 20 |
| 50 | 0.000 | 100.000 | 0 | 100 |
| 100 | 0.000 | 200.000 | 0 | 200 |
| 1000 | 0.000 | 2000.000 | 0 | 2000 |

Table 1. Lowest ($`n=0`$) QNM frequencies for $`m=0`$.

| $`m=1`$ | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Numerical | | Exact | |
| $`M^{1/2}`$ | $`\omega _r`$ | $`\omega _i`$ | $`\omega _r`$ | $`\omega _i`$ |
| $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 1 | 2 |
| 5 | 1.000 | 10.000 | 1 | 10 |
| 10 | 1.000 | $`20.000`$ | 1 | 20 |
| 50 | 1.000 | 100.000 | 1 | 100 |
| 100 | 1.000 | 200.000 | 1 | 200 |
| 1000 | 1.000 | 2000.000 | 1 | 2000 |

Table 2. Lowest ($`n=0`$) QNM frequencies for $`m=1`$.

The numerical results agree perfectly with (19), and one sees that the imaginary part of the frequency scales with the horizon whereas the real part depends only on the angular index $`m`$.

## 3 Perturbing a black hole with Dirac and Weyl spinor fields

### 3.1 The wave equation

We shall develop Dirac’s equation for a massive spinor, and then specialize to the massless case. The two component massive spinor field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, with mass $`\mu _s`$ obeys the covariant Dirac equation

$$i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\mu _s\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(23)
where $`_\mu `$ is the spinor covariant derivative defined by $`_\mu =_\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{[a}\gamma _{b]}`$, and $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ is the spin connection, which may be given in terms of the tryad $`e_a^\mu `$.

As is well known there are two inequivalent two dimensional irreducible representations of the $`\gamma `$ matrices in three spacetime dimensions. The first may be taken to be $`\gamma ^0=i\sigma ^2,\gamma ^1=\sigma ^1`$, and $`\gamma ^2=\sigma ^3`$, where the matrices $`\sigma ^k`$ are the Pauli matrices. The second representation is given in terms of the first by a minus sign in front of the Pauli matrices. From equation (23), one sees that a Dirac particle with mass $`\mu _s`$ in the first representation is equivalent to a Dirac particle with mass $`\mu _s`$ in the second representation. To be definitive, we will use the first representation, but the results can be interchanged to the second one, by substituting $`\mu _s\mu _s`$. For Weyl particles, $`\mu _s=0`$, both representations yield the same results.

Again, one can separate variables by setting

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,r,\varphi )=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(t,r)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_2(t,r)\end{array}\right]e^{i\omega t}e^{im\varphi }.`$ (26)
On substituting this decomposition into Dirac’s equation (23) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i(M2r^2)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}}r\mathrm{\Psi }_2+i\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}_r\mathrm{\Psi }_2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_2=(m+\mu _s)\mathrm{\Psi }_1,`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i(M2r^2)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}}r\mathrm{\Psi }_1+i\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}_r\mathrm{\Psi }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1=(m+\mu _s)\mathrm{\Psi }_2,`$ (28)
where we have put $`\mathrm{\Delta }=Mr^2+\frac{r^4}{l^2}`$, we have restored the AdS lengthscale $`l`$, and in general we follow Chandrasekhar’s notation . Defining $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$, and $`\widehat{m}`$ through the relations

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=i\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/4}R_1,`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/4}R_2,`$ (30)
$`m=i\widehat{m},`$ (31)
we obtain,

$`(_r_{}i\omega )R_2={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}{r^2}}(\widehat{m}i\mu _sr)R_1,`$ (32)
$`(_r_{}+i\omega )R_1={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}{r^2}}(\widehat{m}+i\mu _sr)R_2.`$ (33)
Defining now $`\nu `$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2`$, and $`\widehat{r}_{}`$ through the relations

$`\nu =\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _sr}{\widehat{m}}}),`$ (34)
$`R_1=e^{\frac{i\nu }{2}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1,`$ (35)
$`R_2=e^{\frac{i\nu }{2}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2,`$ (36)
$`\widehat{r}_{}=r_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega }}\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _sr}{\widehat{m}}}),`$ (37)
we get

$`(_{\widehat{r}_{}}i\omega )\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2=W\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1,`$ (38)
$`(_{\widehat{r}_{}}i\omega )\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2=W\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2,`$ (39)
where,

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(\widehat{m}^2+\mu _s^2r^2)^{3/2}}{r^2(\widehat{m}^2+\mu _s^2r^2)+\frac{\widehat{m}\mu _s\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\omega }}}.`$ (40)
Finally, putting $`Z_\pm =\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_1\pm \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2`$ we have

$`(_{\widehat{r}_{}}^2+\omega ^2)Z_\pm =V_\pm Z_\pm ,`$ (41)
with

$$V_\pm =W^2\pm \frac{dW}{d\widehat{r}_{}}.$$
(42)
We shall be concerned with massless spinors ($`\mu _s=0`$) for which $`\widehat{r}_{}=r_{}`$, and $`W=\frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\widehat{m}}{r^2}`$. Thus,

$`V_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}M)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{Mm}{r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}M)^{1/2}.`$ (43)
In the form (42) one immediatly recognizes that the two potentials $`V_+`$ and $`V_{}`$ should yield the same spectrum. In fact they are, in SUSY language, superpartner potentials derived from a superpotential W (see ). Once again, we can rescale $`r`$ and take $`l=1`$, by measuring everything in terms of l.

### 3.2  QNMs for Weyl perturbations

Similarly, the wave equation (41) for Weyl (until recently also called neutrino) perturbations may be put in the form

$$_r_{}^2Z_\pm +\left[\omega ^2m\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{cosh}(M^{1/2}r_{})^2}\pm M^{1/2}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(M^{1/2}r_{})^2}{\mathrm{cosh}(M^{1/2}r_{})^2}\right)\right]Z_\pm =0.$$
(44)
Going to a new independent variable, $`x=\mathrm{sinh}(M^{1/2}r_{})`$, $`x`$ $`ϵ`$ $`[\mathrm{},0]`$, we can write

$$(1+x^2)Z^{\prime \prime }+xZ^{}+[\frac{\frac{\omega ^2(1+x^2)}{M}\frac{m^2}{M}\pm \frac{mx}{M^{1/2}}}{1+x^2}]Z=0.$$
(45)
By changing the wavefunction Z to $`\chi `$

$$\chi =e^{(\frac{M^{1/2}x2m}{2M^{1/2}}\frac{x}{2})\mathrm{arctan}(x)},$$
(46)
we have

$$(1+x^2)\chi ^{\prime \prime }+(\frac{2m}{M^{1/2}}+x)\chi ^{}+(\frac{\omega ^2}{M})\chi =0.$$
(47)
On putting $`s=\frac{1+iz}{2}`$, $`s`$ $`ϵ`$ $`[\frac{1}{2},i\mathrm{}]`$, we have again the hypergeometric equation (16), with $`a=\frac{i\omega }{M^{1/2}}`$, $`b=\frac{i\omega }{M^{1/2}}`$, and $`c=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{im}{M^{1/2}}`$, so that the solution to the wave equation is again specified around each singular point, and is given by the analytic continuation of the standard hypergeometric function to the complex plane .

Since infinity is located at $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, there is no easy way to determine the QNM frequencies, so we have to resort to numerical calculations. If we put (40) in the form (20) one again sees that it has no essential singularities, so the numerical method just outlined in the previous section may be applied. Moreover, since $`V_+`$ and $`V_{}`$ have the same spectrum  and the same QNM frequencies  we need only to workout the frequencies for one of them. In table 3 we present the numerical results for the QNM frequencies for neutrino perturbations and for selected values of the black hole mass.

| $`m=1`$ | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | Numerical | |
| $`M^{1/2}`$ | $`\omega _r`$ | $`\omega _i`$ |
| 2 | 0.378 | 2.174 |
| 5 | 0.316 | 5.027 |
| 10 | 0.224 | 10.006 |
| 50 | 0.099 | 50.001 |
| 100 | 0.071 | 100.000 |
| 500 | 0.0316 | 500.000 |

Table 3. Lowest QNM frequencies for $`m=1`$.

For large black holes one can see that the imaginary part of the frequencies scale with the horizon ($`r_+=M^{1/2}`$), just as in the scalar and electromagnetic case. We have also computed some higher modes, and the real part of the frequency $`\omega _r`$, does not seem to depend on which mode we are dealing with, just as in the scalar and electromagnetic case.

## 4 Conclusions

We have computed the scalar, electromagnetic and neutrino QNM of BTZ black holes. These modes dictate the late time behaviour of the fields. In all cases, these modes scale with the horizon radius, at least for large black holes and, since the decay of the perturbation has a timescale $`\tau =\frac{1}{\omega _i}`$, this means that the greater the mass, the less time it takes to approach equilibrium. We have also found that for large black holes, the QNM frequencies are proportional to the black hole radius. Since the temperature of a BTZ black is proportional to the black hole radius, the QNM frequencies scale with the temperature, as a simple argument indicates . For the study of QNM of 3+1-dimensional spherical, as well as the toroidal black holes found by Lemos  see .

Is there, for small black holes, any relation with these quasinormal modes and critical phenomena as speculated by Horowitz and Hubeny ? Though that would be an extremely interesting relation, we still are not able to answer that.

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded by FCT through project Sapiens. One of us (V. C.) acknowledges finantial support from the portuguese FCT through PRAXIS XXI programme.


text:
# AS-TEXONO/01-02 NEUTRINO EXPERIMENTS : HIGHLIGHTS

## 1 Introduction

With the strong evidence presented by the Super-Kamiokande experiment on neutrino oscillations $`^\mathrm{?}`$, there are intense world-wide efforts to pursue the next-generation of neutrino experiments.

The aims of the first section of this article is to “set the stage” for students and researchers not in the field by summarizing the key ingredients and highlights of the goals, status and future directions in neutrino physics experiments. It is not meant to be a comprehensive lecture or detailed review article. Interested readers can pursue the details from the listed references on textbook accounts $`^\mathrm{?}`$, latest status $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Web-links $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The second part of this article presents an account of the research program of the TEXONO Collaboration.

## 2 Neutrino Physics Experiments

### 2.1 Why Neutrino Physics

Neutrino exists $``$ and exists in large quantities in the Universe, comparable in number density to the photon. It is known that there are three flavors of light neutrino coupled via weak interaction to the Z gauge boson. Yet the fundamental properties : (1) masses, denoted by $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{i}`$ for mass eigenstate $`\nu _\mathrm{i}`$, and (2) mixings, denoted by $`\mathrm{U}_{\mathrm{𝑙𝑖}}`$ for mixing matrix elements between flavor eigenstate $`\nu _l`$ and mass eigenstate $`\nu _\mathrm{i}`$ (alternatively by $`\theta _{\mathrm{ij}}`$ for mixing angles between mass eigenstates $`\nu _\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{j}`$), remains unknown or at least not accurately known enough.

In field theory language, this translates to the crucial question on the structure (or even the possible existence) of a “neutrino mass term” L($`\nu `$-mass) in the total Lagrangian. Standard Model sets this to be identically zero, but without any compelling reasons $``$ in contrast to the massless-ness of the photons being dictated by gauge invariance. The detailed structures and values of this term can reveal much about the Grand Unified Theories.

At the large length-scale frontier, neutrino mass is related to the composition and structural evolution of the Universe. Neutrino has been a candidate of Dark Matter $`^\mathrm{?}`$: in fact it is the only candidate within the list that is proven to exist.

Experimentally, the probing of L($`\nu `$-mass) is carried out by studying various processes related to neutrino masses and mixings, such as direct mass measurement through the distortion of $`\beta `$-spectra, neutrinoless double beta decays, neutrino oscillations, neutrino magnetic moments, neutrino decays ….. and so on. These investigations are realized by a wide spectrum of experimental techniques spanned over several decades of energy scale with different neutrino sources. The expected neutrino spectrum due to terrestrial and astrophysical sources are shown in Figure 1.

In addition, neutrino has been used as probe (as “beam” from accelerators and reactors and even astrophysical sources) to study electroweak physics, QCD, structure function physics, nuclear physics, and to provide otherwise inaccessible information on the interior of stars and supernovae.

Therefore, the study of neutrino physics and the implications of the results connect many disciplines together, from particle physics to nuclear physics to astrophysics to cosmology.

### 2.2 Current Status and Interpretations

Neutrino interactions are characterized by cross-sections at the weak scale (100 fb at 100 GeV to $`<10^4`$ fb at 1 MeV). As an illustration, the mean free path in water for $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ from power reactors at the typical energy of 2 MeV is 250 light years! The central challenge to neutrino experiments is therefore on how to beat this small cross section and/or slow decay rate. Usually massive detectors are necessary to compensate by their large target size. Then the issue becomes how to keep the cost and background low.

After half a century of ingenious experiments since the experimental discovery of the neutrinos by Cowan and Reines, there are several results which may indicate the existence of neutrino masses, and hence physics beyond the Standard Model. All these results are based on experimental searches of neutrino oscillation, a quantum-mechanical effect which allows neutrino to transform from one flavor eigenstate to another as it traverses in space. This process depends on the mass difference ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2=|\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{i}^2\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{j}^2|`$) rather than the absolute mass, resulting in enhanced sensitivities. A simplified summary of the results of neutrino oscillation experiments is shown in Figure 2.

The “allowed regions” are due to anomalous results from experiments in:

1. Atmospheric Neutrinos:
Data from the Super-Kamiokande experiments $`^\mathrm{?}`$, supported by other experiments, indicates a smaller $`(\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu _\mu })/(\nu _\mathrm{e}+\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}})`$ ratio than would be expected from propagation models of cosmic-ray showering. The “smoking gun” for new physics is that the deficit has a statistically strong dependence with the zenith angle, meaning the effect depends on the propagation distance of the neutrinos from the production point to the detector. The combined fit supports a scenario of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation.
2. Solar Neutrinos:
All solar neutrinos to date reported an observed solar neutrino flux less than the predictions of Standard Solar Model. The deficit is different among the experiments, suggesting an energy dependence which is difficult to be explained by standard solar models. However, within an individual experiment, the potential “smoking gun” effects (day-night variation, seasonal variation, spectral distortion) are absent or statistically weak. The combined data favors neutrino oscillations of $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ to another species, active or sterile: $`\nu _\mathrm{e}\nu _\mathrm{x}`$, either in vacuum or due to matter-enhanced oscillation (the “MSW” Effect) in the Sun.
3. LSND Anomaly:
The LSND experiment with accelerator neutrinos reported unexpected excess of $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ in a $`\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu _\mu }`$ beam, which can be explained by $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mathrm{e}`$ oscillation. The results are yet to be reproduced (or totally excluded) by other experiments.

If all experimental results are correct and to be explained by neutrino oscillations, one must incorporate a fourth-generation sterile neutrino. If one takes the conservative approach that LSND results must be reproduced by an independent experiment before they are incorporated into the theoretical framework, then the favored scenario would be a three-family scheme with:

* Neutrino Mass Differences:
Atmospheric neutrino oscillation is driven by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}_{23}^210^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ which is much bigger than the scale which drives solar neutrino oscillation at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}_{12}^210^410^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ due to matter-enhanced oscillation, as depicted in Figure 3. The sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}_{23}^2`$ remains undetermined.
* Mixing Angles:
Surprisingly when compared to the quark sector, the atmospheric neutrino data supports strongly large mixing angles (order of 1) for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$. Combining all data from solar neutrinos also statistically favors large $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$. The 1-km baseline reactor neutrino experiments set limits on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.1`$.

### 2.3 Future Experimental Program

Among the various neutrino sources depicted in Figure 1, only a relatively small window from $``$1 MeV to $``$100 GeV is detectable by present techniques. The future of neutrino experiments will therefore evolve along various directions:

#### (I) Further Exploration of the Measured Window

* Long Baseline (LBL) Neutrino Oscillation Experiments:
There is a running experiment with accelerator neutrinos produced by “proton-on-target” (PoT) from KEK to the Super-Kamiokande detector (250 km), while two others (both 730 km) in construction: Fermilab to MINOS experiment at Soudan, and CERN to ICANOE and OPERA experiments at Gran Sasso. The goals will be to reproduce and improve on the $`\nu _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ parameters, to observe the E/L oscillation pattern, and to detect $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance explicit by observing $`\nu _\tau `$ charged-current interactions leading to the production of $`\tau `$-lepton.
In addition, there are two experiments, KamLAND and BOREXINO, with capabilities of performing LBL experiments with reactor neutrinos from power plants $``$100 km away. Their goals will be the probe the “Large Mixing Angle” MSW solution to the solar neutrino data.
* Detection of Weak/Rare Signals:
Various big underground experiments are sensitive to neutrinos from supernovae, with the hope of detecting thousands of events from the next supernova, as compared to the 20 events from SN1987a. The LBL reactor neutrino experiments will also try to observe “terrestrial neutrinos” produced by the radioactive (mainly 232Th and 238U series) from the Earth’s crust.
* Further Double Beta Decay Searches:
Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay is sensitive to the absolute scale of $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{i}^2`$ rather then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{ij}}^2`$. Many R&D projects are underway to try to achieve the interesting range of $`\mathrm{m}_30.10.01`$ which is a scenario suggested by atmospheric neutrino results.
* Neutrino Factories from Muon Storage Rings:
There are intense pilot efforts to study the feasibilities of performing LBL experiments with a “Neutrino Factory” where the neutrinos are produced by muons decay in a muon storage ring. Unlike conventional PoT neutrino beam, $`\mu `$-decay gives beams which are selectable in $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu _\mu }`$, and with well-known spectra and compositions. Coupled to the high luminosity and small beam size, they can be powerful tools to study neutrino physics. The goals for the LBL program, where the baseline will have to be the 1000-10000 km range, would be to do precision measurements on the $`\nu _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ parameters, to probe $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ to O($`10^4`$) (from $`\nu _\mathrm{e}\nu _\mu `$), to determine the signs of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}_{23}^2`$ (from the asymmetric $`\nu _\mathrm{e}/\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ matter effects), and to probe CP-violation in the lepton sector (comparing $`\nu _\mathrm{e}\nu _\mu `$ & $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}\overline{\nu _\mu }`$). There are many technical challenges which must be addressed towards the realization of such projects.

#### (II) Extension of Detection Capabilities:

* High Energy Frontiers:
There are several “neutrino telescope” projects (Lake Baikal, AMANDA, NESTOR, ANTARES) whose objective is towards the construction of an eventual “km3” detector. The scientific goals are (a) to identify and understand the astrophysics of high-energy (TeV to PeV) neutrino sources from active galactic nuclei, gamma-ray bursts, neutron stars and other astrophysical objects, and (b) to use these high-energy neutrinos for neutrino physics like very long baseline studies.
* Low Energy Frontiers:
There are a host of new solar neutrino experiments: SNO is taking data while Borexino and KamLAND are under construction, as well as many R&D ideas and projects. Their goals are to measure the solar neutrino spectrum and particularly those from the dominant sub-MeV pp and 7Be neutrinos, and to study the details of spectral shape, day-night and seasonal variations, as well as the neutral-current to charged-current ratios, so as to identify a unique solutioin to “solar neutrino problem”, and to measure the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{m}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$) parameters. The low-energy solar neutrino spectrum also provides a probe to the other inaccessible physics at the interior of the Sun.
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMP) are candidates for Dark Matter. Their experimental searches also employ the techniques of low-background low-energy experiments. Many experiments are running or being planned, based on crystal scintillators, cryogenic detectors and other techniques.
Finally, the relic “Big Bang” neutrino, the counterpart to the 2.7 K cosmic microwave photon background (CMB), has large number density (110 $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for Majorana neutrinos, comparing to 411 $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for CMB) but extremely small cross sections due to the meV energy scale at an effective temperature of 1.9 K. The relic neutrinos decouples from matter at a much earlier time (1 s) than the CMB (3$`\times 10^5`$ years), and hence are, in principle, better probes to the early Universe. A demonstration of its existence and a measurement of its density is a subject of extraordinary importance. Though there is no realistic proposals on how to detect them, it follows the traditions of offering a highly rewarding challenge to and pushing the ingenuity of neutrino experimentalists.

## 3 Research Program of the TEXONO Collaboration

Since 1997, the TEXONOaaaTaiwan EXperiment On NeutrinO Collaboration has been built up to initiate and pursue an experimental program in Neutrino and Astroparticle Physics $`^\mathrm{?}`$. By the end of 2000, the Collaboration comprises more than 40 research scientists from major institutes/universities in Taiwan (Academia Sinica, Chung-Kuo Institute of Technology, Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, and Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Station), Mainland China (Institute of High Energy Physics, Institute of Atomic Energy, Institute of Radiation Protection, Nanjing University) and the United States (University of Maryland), with AS, IHEP and IAE (with ) being the leading groups. It is the first research collaboration of this size and magnitude. among Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese scientists

The research program $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is based on the the unexplored and unexploited theme of adopting the scintillating crystal detector techniques for low-energy low-background experiments in Neutrino and Astroparticle Physics $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The “Flagship” experiment $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is based on CsI(Tl) crystals placed near the core of the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Station (KSNPS) at the northern shore of Taiwan to study low energy neutrino interactions. It is the first particle physics experiment performed in Taiwan where local scientists are taking up major roles and responsibilities in all aspects of its operation: conception, formulation, design, prototype studies, construction, commissioning, as well as data taking and analysis.

In parallel to the flagship reactor experiment, various R&D efforts coherent with the theme are initiated and pursued.

### 3.1 Scintillating Crystal Detector for Low-Energy Experiments

One of the major directions and experimental challenges in neutrino physics $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is to extend the measurement capabilities to the sub-MeV range for the detection of the p-p and 7Be solar neutrinos, Dark Matter searches and other topics. For instance, while high energy (GeV) neutrino beams from accelerators have been very productive in the investigations of electroweak, QCD and structure function physics, the use of low energy (MeV) neutrino as a probe to study particle and nuclear physics has not been well explored. Nuclear power reactors are abundant source of electron anti-neutrinos ($`\overline{\nu _e}`$) at the MeV range and therefore provide a convenient laboratory for these studies.

On the detector technology fronts, large water Cerenkov and liquid scintillator detectors have been successfully used in neutrino and astro-particle physics experiments. New detector technology must be explored to open new windows of opportunities. Crystal scintillators may be well-suited to be adopted for low background experiments at the keV-MeV range $`^\mathrm{?}`$. They have been widely used as electromagnetic calorimeters in high energy physics $`^\mathrm{?}`$, as well as in medical and security imaging and in the oil-extraction industry. There are matured experience in constructing and operating scintillating crystal detectors to the mass range of 100 tons.

This technique offer many potential merits for low-energy low-background experiments. In particular, they are usually made of high-Z materials which provide strong attenuation for $`\gamma `$’s of energy less than 500 keV, as indicated in the photon attenuation plot in Figure 4. As an illustration, 10 cm of CsI(Tl) has the same attenuating power as 5.6 m of liquid scintillators at $`\gamma `$-energy of 100 keV. Consequently, it is possible to realize a compact detector design with minimal passive materials equipped with efficient active veto and passive shielding. Externally originated photons in this energy range from ambient radioactivity or from surrounding equipment cannot penetrate into the fiducial volume. Therefore, the dominating contribution to the experimental sensitivities is expected to be from the internal background in the crystal itself, either due to intrinsic radioactivity or cosmic-induced long-lived isotopes, both of which can be identified and measured such that the associated background can be subtracted off accordingly. The experimental challenges are focussed on the understanding and control of the internal background. Pioneering efforts have already been made with NaI(Tl) crystals for Dark Matter searches $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

### 3.2 Flagship Experiment with Reactor Neutrinos

An experiment towards a 500 kg CsI(Tl) scintillating crystal detector to be placed at a distance of 28 m from a core in KSNPS is under construction to study various neutrino interactions at the keV-MeV range $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and to establish and explore the general techniques for other low-energy low-background applications. The layout of the experimental site is shown in Figure 5

The physics objectives of the experiment are to improve on or to explore the subjects of: (1) Neutrino-electron scatterings, which is a fundamental interaction providing information on the electro-weak parameters ($`\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{V},\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{A},\mathrm{and}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}`$), and are sensitive to small neutrino magnetic moments ($`\mu \nu `$) and the mean square charge radius, as well as the W-Z interference effects; (2) Neutrino interactions on nuclei such as 133Cs and 127I, and in particular the neutral current excitation (NCEX) channels where the signatures are gamma-lines at the characteristic energies $``$ their cross-sections are related to the physics of nucleon structure, and are essential to explore the scenario of applying these interaction channels in the detection of low energy solar and supernova neutrinos; (3) Matter effects on neutrinos, since this is the first big high-Z detector built for reactor neutrino studies.

To fully exploit the advantageous features of the scintillating crystal approach in low-energy low-background experiments, the experimental configuration should enable the definition of a fiducial volume with a surrounding active 4$`\pi `$-veto, and minimal passive materials. This is realized by a design shown schematically in Figure 6. One CsI(Tl) crystal unit consists of a hexagonal-shaped cross-section with 2 cm side and a length 20 cm, giving a mass of 0.94 kg. Two such units are glued optically at one end to form a module. The modules will be installed in stages towards an eventual $`17\times 15`$ matrix configuration. The light output are read out at both ends by custom-designed 29 mm diameter photo-multipliers (PMTs) with low-activity glass, whose signals will pass through amplifiers and shapers to be digitized by 20 MHz FADCs $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The sum and difference of the PMT signals gives information on the energy and the longitudinal position of the events, respectively. The passive shieldings consist of, from inside out, 5 cm of copper, 25 cm of boron-loaded polyethylene, 5 cm of steel, 15 cm of lead and finally plastic scintillators as cosmic-ray veto. The target is housed in a nitrogen environment to prevent background events due to the diffusion of the radioactive radon gas.

Extensive measurements on the crystal prototype modules have been performed $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The response is depicted in Figure 7, showing the variation of collected light for $`\mathrm{Q}_1`$, $`\mathrm{Q}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Q}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ as a function of position within one crystal module. The error bars denote the FWHM width of the 137Cs photo-peaks. The discontinuity at L=20 cm is due to the optical mis-match between the glue (n=1.5) and the CsI(Tl) crystal (n=1.8). It can be seen that $`\mathrm{Q}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is only weakly dependent of the position and a 10% FWHM energy resolution is achieved at 660 keV. The detection threshold (where signals are measured at both PMTs) is $`<`$20 keV. The longitudinal position can be obtained by considering the variation of the ratio $`\mathrm{R}=(\mathrm{Q}_1\mathrm{Q}_2)/(\mathrm{Q}_1+\mathrm{Q}_2)`$ along the crystal. Resolutions of 2 cm and 3.5 cm at 660 keV and 200 keV, respectively, have been demonstrated.

In addition, CsI(Tl) provides powerful pulse shape discrimination capabilities to differentiate $`\gamma `$/e from $`\alpha `$ events, with an excellent separation of $`>`$99% above 500 keV. The light output for $`\alpha `$’s in CsI(Tl) is quenched less than that in liquid scintillators. The absence of multiple $`\alpha `$-peaks above 3 MeV in the prototype measurements suggests that a 238U and 232Th concentration (assuming equilibrium) of $`<10^{12}`$ g/g can be achieved.

By early 2001, after three and a half years of preparatory efforts, the “Kuo-Sheng Neutrino Laboratory”, equipped with flexibly-designed shieldings, cosmic-ray 4-$`\pi `$ active veto, complete electronics which allow full digitization of multi-channel detectors for a 10 ms long duration, data acquisition and monitoring systems, as well as remote assess capabilities, was formulated, designed, constructed and commissioned. Prototype CsI(Tl) detector has been operating in the home-base laboratory. The first Reactor ON/OFF data taking period will be based on a 1 kg low-background germanium detector with 100 kg of CsI(Tl) running in conjunction.

### 3.3 R&D Projects

Various projects with stronger R&D flavors are proceeding in parallel to the flagship reactor experiment. A feasibility study of using boron-loaded liquid scintillator for the detection of $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ has completed $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The cases of using of GSO $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and LiI(Eu) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ as well as Yb-based scintillating crystals for low energy solar neutrinos are explored. The adaptations of CsI(Tl) crystal scintillator for Dark Matter WIMP searches are studied, which includes a neutron beam measurement to study the response due to nuclear recoils $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

A generic and convenient technique to measure trace concentration of radio-isotopes in sample materials is of great importance to the advance of low-energy low-background experiments. A R&D program is initiated to adapt the techniques of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry(AMS) with the established facilities at the 13 MV TANDEM accelerator at IAE $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The goals are to device methods to measure 238U, 232Th, 87Rb, 40K in liquid and crystal scintillators beyond the present capabilities $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Complementary to these physics-oriented program are detector R&D efforts. Techniques to grow CsI(Tl) mono-crystal of length 40 cm, the longest in the world, have been developed and are deployed in the production for future batches.

## 4 Outlook

Neutrino physics and astrophysics will remain a central subject in experimental particle physics in the coming decade and beyond. There are room for ground-breaking technical innovations - as well as potentials for surprises in the scientific results.

A Taiwan, Mainland China and U.S.A. collaboration has been built up with the goal of playing a major role in this field. It is the first generation collaborative efforts in large-scale basic research between scientists from Taiwan and Mainland China. The technical strength and scientific connections of the Collaboration are expanding and consolidating. The flagship experiment is to perform the first-ever particle physics experiment in Taiwan. Many R&D projects are being pursued.

The importance of the implications and outcomes of the experiment and experience will lie besides, if not beyond, neutrino physics.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the members, technical staff and industrial partners of TEXONO Collaboration, as well as the concerned colleagues for the many contributions which “make things happen” in such a short period of time. Funding are provided by the National Science Council, Taiwan and the National Science Foundation, China, as well as from the operational funds of the collaborating institutes.

## References