text:
# Interference effects in isolated Josephson junction arrays with geometric symmetries

## I Introduction

Josephson junction arrays are excellent tools for exploring quantum-mechanical behavior in a wide range of parameter space . The charge and phase on each island provide a set of conjugate quantum variables, allowing for dual descriptions of the array either in terms of charges (Cooper pairs) hopping between the islands or in terms of vortices hopping between the plaquets of the array . This opens the door for the set up and manipulation of interesting quantum interference effects in Josephson junction arrays: in a magnetic field, charges pick up additional Aharonov–Bohm phases and hence the properties of the array depend on the field strength. In the dual language, vortices moving around islands gain phases proportional to the average charges on the islands (Aharonov–Casher phases) . These features have recently been used in various proposals for solid state implementations of qubits for quantum computing, based on either the charge  or phase  degree of freedom in Josephson junction arrays.

In this paper we study an interference effect in electrically isolated Josephson junction arrays which renders the ground state and excitation spectrum sensitive to the total charge on the array. This effect combines the dual descriptions in terms of charge or phase: i) in the limit where the charging energy $`E_C`$ is much larger than the Josephson energy $`E_J`$, the fluctuations of charge on the islands are small and the system is equivalent to strongly repulsive bosons (Cooper pairs) hopping between islands; the total charge then determines the number of such bosons and hence the structure of the spectrum. ii) In the opposite limit of large Josephson energy $`E_J`$, the phase fluctuations are small and the spectrum is determined by phase tunneling between classical minima of the Josephson energy; the total charge on the array then determines the interference between different tunneling trajectories via the Aharonov–Casher effect. These interference effects, where the ground state and the excitations may change degeneracies depending on the total charge on the array, are most pronounced in small arrays with geometric symmetries; for the symmetric loops considered in this paper they coincide in the charge- and phase-dominated limits and persist at arbitrary ratio of the Josephson- to charging energy. In mathematical terms, the total charge on the array enters its symmetry group producing a central extension . The irreducible representations are then classified by the total charge, and their dimensions (and associated level degeneracies) depend on the charge on the array.

In experimental realizations of Josephson junction arrays, the charges and potentials on the islands are affected by a number of external factors such as differences in island size, background charges, charges localized at impurities, etc. All these factors produce random charge offsets on the islands which distort the quantum interference pattern (see e.g. the discussion of offset charges in Ref. ). In order to observe the quantum interference effects predicted in this paper the potentials of the islands should be adjustable via external capacitive gates. The offset charges should then be compensated by appropriate tuning of the gate voltages; such a procedure was successfully carried out in a transport measurement involving two islands  and should also be possible for the system considered in this paper. We also assume the absence of quasiparticles on the islands. Firstly, this requires the temperature to be sufficiently low to eliminate thermal quasiparticles. Secondly, the total number of electrons on the array must be even in order to exclude unpaired charge due to the parity effect.

In the following we study the simplest setup exhibiting these interference effects, a closed low-inductance loop with $`N3`$ identical Josephson junctions and pierced by one-half superconducting flux quantum (Fig. 1). Such loops have been proposed as possible realizations for superconducting phase quantum bits  and a successful quantum superposition of the two qubit states has been reported recently . While in the original qubit design the loop has been made asymmetric in order to suppress the interference of different tunneling paths , it is this interference that we study in the present paper where we assume the islands and contacts to be nearly identical (the required precision will be specified at the end of the paper). The ground state degeneracy of such a symmetric Josephson-junction loop is found to depend periodically on the total charge $`Q`$ with period $`2eN`$, $`N`$ is the number of islands in the loop. In particular, in the phase-dominated regime $`E_JE_C`$ the Josephson energy of the fully frustrated loop exhibits two equivalent minima describing states with currents circulating in opposite directions. Tunneling between these minima produces a splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between these levels which is determined by the charges $`q_i`$ (in units of $`2e`$) induced on the islands,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0|1+e^{2\pi iq_1}+e^{2\pi i(q_1+q_2)}+\mathrm{}`$ (2)
$`+e^{2\pi i(q_1+\mathrm{}+q_{N1})}|,`$
and which vanishes for $`(Q/2e)0(\mathrm{mod}N)`$ (the sum of all induced charges $`q_i`$ equals $`Q`$, and the expression (2) is symmetric under circular permutation of the islands). This result is the consequence of the interference of different tunneling paths connecting the two minima where the relative phases of the tunneling amplitudes depend on the charges $`q_i`$ (a similar effect was predicted for the S-S-S double junction in Ref. ). The induced charges $`q_i`$ may be tuned by either gate voltages (redistributing the existing charge) or by adding/removing extra charge to/from the array. E.g. suppose that all charges $`q_i`$ have been set to zero by fine tuning the gate voltages, thus maximizing the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then adding (or removing) a charge $`Q`$ at fixed relative potentials adds a value $`Q/2eN`$ to each induced charge $`q_i`$ and closes the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$: the splitting is present when the charge $`Q/2e`$ is divisible by $`N`$ and absent otherwise. A similar result applies for the opposite limit $`E_CE_J`$ where the ground state is non-degenerate with the next excited state an energy $`E_C`$ away if $`Q/2e`$ is divisible by $`N`$ (‘insulating’ state), while it is degenerate with an excitation gap of order $`E_J`$ if $`Q/2e0(\mathrm{mod}N)`$ (‘metallic’ state). Indeed, this $`Q`$-dependence of the ground state degeneracy will be explained using symmetry considerations valid in the entire range of couplings $`E_J/E_C`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we define the model and prove the periodic dependence of the excitation spectrum on the total charge $`Q`$, for a symmetric loop. In Sections III and IV, we treat the limits $`E_JE_C`$ and $`E_JE_C`$, respectively. Section V contains the analysis of the symmetries of the loop. Finally, in Section VI we discuss the physical requirements for observing the charge-dependent interference effects.

## II Model and periodic $`Q`$-dependence of the spectrum

The Hamiltonian describing the qubit in Fig. 1 takes the form

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}Q_i(C^1)_{ij}Q_j+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V_iQ_i`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}U_i(\phi _{i+1}\phi _ia_{i,i+1}).`$
Here, $`\phi _i`$ are the phases on the islands, $`Q_ii/\phi _i`$ are the charge operators conjugate to $`\phi _i`$ (we measure $`Q`$ in units of $`2e`$ from now on), $`(C^1)_{ij}`$ is the inverse capacitance matrix, $`V_i`$ are the gate voltages applied to the islands, $`U_i`$ are the Josephson energies of the junctions, and $`a_{i,i+1}`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential induced by the external magnetic field ($`i+1`$ in the indices should be understood modulo $`N`$). This Hamiltonian acts on the wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N)`$ which are periodic in all their variables,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _i+2\pi ,\mathrm{},\phi _N)`$ (6)
$`=\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _i,\mathrm{},\phi _N).`$
In general, the boundary conditions (6) may contain arbitrary phase shifts $`e^{i\theta _i}`$ incorporating the effect of background charges. They can be manipulated by the gate voltages $`V_i`$ and we assume them to vanish through appropriate fine tuning (this is equivalent to adjusting the zero positions of the gate voltages). We assume that this tuning is performed once in the beginning of the experiment and later measure the gate voltages relative to these reference values.

Since the potential term in the Hamiltonian (4) contains only phase differences $`\phi _i\phi _j`$, it has the symmetry of rotating all the phases by the same angle: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N)\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1+\delta \phi ,\mathrm{},\phi _N+\delta \phi )`$. Equivalently, the total charge $`Q=_iQ_i`$ is conserved (i.e., the charge $`Q`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian $`H`$) and we may project the Hilbert space onto the subspace with a given total charge $`Q`$ before diagonalization, implying the transformation rule

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1+\delta \phi ,\mathrm{},\phi _N+\delta \phi )=e^{i\delta \phi Q}\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N)$$
(7)
for the simultaneous rotation of all the phases by $`\delta \phi `$. From the periodicity of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it immediately follows that $`Q`$ is integer, i.e., the total charge must be a multiple of $`2e`$ (this is in fact an implicit assumption when writing the Hamiltonian (4) in terms of phases only). In the following we shall discuss the symmetric loop, postponing the effects of asymmetry till the end of the paper. Here, by symmetry we mean $`(C^1)_{ij}=(C^1)_{i+k,j+k}`$ for the Coulomb term and equality of all Josephson terms $`U_i(\phi )`$. This implies that the loop is invariant under circular permutation of the islands. Also, if the flux through the loop is exactly one half flux quantum, the loop is invariant under ‘flips’ changing the direction of the current.

The excitation spectrum of the symmetric loop periodically depends on the total charge $`Q`$ with the period $`N`$ (up to overall shifts): the unitary operator

$$U:\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }e^{i(\phi _1+\mathrm{}+\phi _N)}$$
(8)
increases the charge on all the islands by one, $`U^1Q_iU=Q_i+1`$, and therefore the sector with total charge $`Q`$ maps onto the one with total charge $`Q+N`$. On the other hand,

$`U^1HU=H+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(C^1)_{ij}Q_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(C^1)_{ij}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V_i.`$

If all the islands are equivalent, then the sum $`_i(C^1)_{ij}`$ is independent of $`j`$ and

$$U^1HU=H+\frac{N}{C}\left(Q+\frac{N}{2}\right)+\underset{i}{}V_i,$$
(9)
where $`C=N\left[_i(C^1)_{ij}\right]^1=_{ij}C_{ij}`$ is the total capacitance of the loop. Thus the operator $`U`$ maps the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian in the sector with charge $`Q`$ onto eigenfunctions in the sector with charge $`Q+N`$ shifting them in energy by a constant as given by (9), thus proving our statement about the periodic $`Q`$-dependence of the excitation spectrum.

## III Level splitting in the $`E_JE_C`$ limit

In the phase-dominated regime with $`E_JE_C`$ the low-energy states of the Josephson junction loop are determined by the classical minima of the Josephson energy as corrected by weak quantum tunneling (due to the finite charging energy). Here, we consider a symmetric loop pierced by half a quantum of magnetic flux, $`_ia_{i,i+1}=\pi `$, and we choose to work in a gauge with $`a_{i,i+1}=\pi /N`$ for all $`i`$. In the limit $`E_JE_C`$ the only constraint on the potential $`U_i(\phi )`$ is the double degeneracy of the total Josephson energy as a function of the phases $`\phi _i`$ (e.g., this requirement is satisfied for tunneling junctions with $`U_i(\phi )=E_J\mathrm{cos}\phi `$ and $`N3`$). The two potential minima are determined by the phase configurations $`\phi _i=0`$ and $`\phi _i=(2\pi /N)i`$ (and all configurations obtained from these two by the continuous symmetry $`\phi _i\phi _i+\delta \phi `$). These two minima involve different directions of the Josephson current, circulating the loop clockwise or counter-clockwise. The continuous symmetry $`\phi _i\phi _i+\delta \phi `$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ implies the quantization of the total charge $`Q`$ as discussed above.

In the following it will be convenient to incorporate the voltage terms $`V_iQ_i`$ into the quadratic kinetic term via a shift $`Q_iQ_iq_i`$, where

$$q_i=\underset{j}{}C_{ij}\left(V_i\frac{\underset{k}{}V_k}{N}\right)+\frac{Q}{N}$$
(10)
are the mean charges induced on the islands (we also include the $`i`$-independent contribution from the total charge $`Q`$ for further convenience). This gauge transformation eliminates the $`V_iQ_i`$ terms in the Hamiltonian (and adds a constant energy shift which we disregard). Under this transformation the wave functions pick up additional phases $`\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{exp}(_iq_i\phi _i)\mathrm{\Psi }`$; the new wave functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ satisfy the twisted boundary conditions

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _j+2\pi ,\mathrm{},\phi _N)`$ (12)
$`=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq_j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _j,\mathrm{},\phi _N)`$
and the invariance under the continuous symmetry $`\phi _i\phi _i+\delta \phi `$ takes the form (c.f. (7)),

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\phi _1+\delta \phi ,\mathrm{},\phi _N+\delta \phi )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N).$$
(13)
We introduce the new variables $`\varphi _+=(\phi _1+\mathrm{}+\phi _N)/N`$ (conjugate to $`Q`$) and the gauge invariant phase drops over the junctions $`\varphi _i=\phi _{i+1}\phi _ia_{i,i+1}`$ (out of $`N`$ variables $`\varphi _i`$, only $`N1`$ are independent, since $`_i\varphi _i=\pi `$). The Hamiltonian then decouples into two, one involving only $`\varphi _+`$ and the other only the phase drops $`\varphi _i`$. The continuous symmetry (13) implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is independent of $`\varphi _+`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _N)`$. The boundary conditions on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ derived from (6) then take the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _j+2\pi ,\varphi _{j+1}2\pi ,\mathrm{},\varphi _N)`$ (14)
$`=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq_j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _j,\varphi _{j+1},\mathrm{},\varphi _N)`$ (15)
and can be given a simple physical interpretation (see Fig. 2(a)): on moving a flux $`2\pi `$ (one flux quantum) around the $`j`$-th island the wave function gains a phase $`2\pi q_j`$.

We are now prepared for the calculation of the tunneling amplitude connecting the two semiclassical minima. Due to the equivalence of phase drops $`\varphi _i`$ differing by a multiple of $`2\pi `$, the coordinate space is a $`(N1)`$-dimensional torus. After unfolding the torus onto the plane, each point on the torus is represented by a lattice of points on the plane. We choose the point $`\{\varphi _i=\pi /N\}`$ as the representative of one of the two minima. The $`N`$ neighboring minima with coordinates $`\{\varphi _i=\pi /N,ik;\varphi _k=\pi /N2\pi \}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$ then correspond to the other minimum. Accordingly, there are $`N`$ different optimal tunneling trajectories connecting the two minima and we have to add up the various amplitudes coherently in order to find the hopping amplitude. Inspection of the particular phase changes along each of these trajectories shows that they may be thought of as describing a flux $`2\pi `$ entering the loop through the junction $`k`$ and leaving the loop equally distributed (i.e., with a fraction $`2\pi /N`$ of flux per junction) among all the junctions, see Fig. 2(b). These trajectories exhibit different phase windings and thus are topologically different. The relative phases between these trajectories may then be read off the boundary conditions for the wave function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$; e.g., the phase difference between the tunneling amplitudes for the trajectories $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ equals the phase difference of the wave function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ at the points $`\{\varphi _i=\pi /N,ik_1;\varphi _{k_1}=\pi /N2\pi \}`$ and $`\{\varphi _i=\pi /Nik_2;\varphi _{k_2}=\pi /N2\pi \}`$. This phase difference is $`2\pi (q_{k_1+1}+q_{k_1+2}+\mathrm{}+q_{k_2})`$ and may be interpreted as the phase generated by the unit flux entering the loop through junction $`k_1`$ and leaving through junction $`k_2`$ (see Fig. 2(c)). From this argument immediately follows the result (2) for the level splitting (the level splitting in the double-well problem is proportional to the absolute value of the tunneling amplitude).

## IV Level splitting in the $`E_JE_C`$ limit

In the charge-dominated limit $`E_JE_C`$ it is convenient to work in the charge representation , where the operators $`Q_i`$ are diagonal and the Josephson term in the Hamiltonian (4) takes the form (we restrict the discussion to tunneling junctions with $`U_i(\phi )=E_J\mathrm{cos}(\phi )`$)

$$H_J=\frac{E_J}{2}\underset{i}{}(L_i^+L_{i+1}^{}e^{i\pi /n}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(16)
with $`L_i^+`$ ($`L_i^{}`$) the charge raising (lowering) operators on the $`i`$-th island, $`L_i^\pm |Q_i=|Q_i\pm 1`$. The periodicity in $`Q`$ allows us to restrict our analysis to the $`N`$ charge sectors $`Q=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. Below we first neglect the coupling $`E_J`$ and find the ground states of the Coulomb part of the Hamiltonian; hopping between the islands is then perturbatively included in a second step.

We start with a diagonal matrix $`(C^1)_{ij}`$ and ignore the capacitive coupling of the junctions, i.e., the islands are coupled only to the ground but not to each other. In that case, the ground state of the Coulomb part of the Hamiltonian is $`C_N^Q`$-fold degenerate ($`C_N^Q=N!/Q!(NQ)!`$ enumerates the number of ways to distribute $`Q`$ particles among $`N`$ sites without double occupancy). Second, we solve the Hamiltonian (16) projected onto this $`C_N^Q`$-dimensional subspace in order to find the level splitting at finite $`E_J`$. This is easily done by observing the equivalence of this problem to the tight-binding model for hard-core bosons on the circle with $`N`$ sites. Mapping to free fermions and taking into account the flux through the loop and the boundary conditions on the circle, one finds that the projected $`H_J`$ describes a tight binding model for $`Q`$ free fermions on a circle with $`N`$ sites and periodic boundary conditions for even $`Q`$, while anti-periodic boundary conditions apply for odd $`Q`$ (Fig. 3). This implies that the ground state is non-degenerate with a gap of order $`E_C`$ if $`Q`$ is divisible by $`N`$ (the ‘insulating state’ with an empty band) and doubly degenerate (with the lowest excitation at an energy of the order of the intra-band level spacing $`E_J/N`$ above the degenerate ground state) otherwise.

Turning on the junction capacitance makes the particles (Cooper pairs) repel each other and they tend to arrange in configurations with maximal separation between them. The number of such configurations is generally less (or equal) than $`C_N^Q`$. We conjecture that even in this case the ground state level is degenerate unless $`Q`$ is divisible by $`N`$. We do not have a rigorous proof of this statement but have verified it for $`N=3,4,5`$ (in fact, for $`N=3`$ the off-diagonal elements of the matrix $`(C^1)_{ij}`$ may be incorporated in a constant term $`Q^2`$ and do not change the properties of the system). The degeneracy may, of course, be explicitly verified for any given $`N`$ and $`Q`$.

## V Symmetry analysis

In the previous sections, we have seen that the ground-state degeneracy depends on the divisibility of the total charge $`Q`$ by the number of islands $`N`$ and coincides in the two limits $`E_JE_C`$ and $`E_JE_C`$. In this section we show that this degeneracy is a consequence of the geometric symmetries of the loop and remains exact beyond the perturbation theory around these limiting cases. We shall classify the irreducible representations of the symmetry group of the loop, and identify the representations corresponding to the ground state. In both limits, the ground states correspond to the same representation, which implies that the degeneracy is also preserved in the intermediate parameter range, unless level-crossing occurs. We verify the absence of level-crossing in the several simplest cases numerically by exact diagonalization.

The level degeneracies for general values of $`E_J/E_C`$ are determined by the symmetry group of the Josephson-junction loop. The geometric symmetries are described by the dihedral group $`D_N`$ consisting of cyclic permutations $`T`$ of the islands (preserving the loop orientation; these are equivalent to a $`N`$-fold rotation axis) and of reflections $`R`$ about diameters of the loop drawn through islands or through junctions, see Fig. 4. The reflections $`R`$ reverse the flux through the loop and belong to its symmetry group for flux zero or half-quantum. The dihedral group $`D_N`$ involves $`2N`$ symmetry operations; it may be characterized with the defining relations

$`T^N`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (17)
$`R^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (18)
$`(TR)^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (19)
These relations are obeyed by the operators representing $`R`$ and $`T`$ at zero magnetic flux through the loop. On the other hand, for the case of half a flux quantum piercing the loop the symmetry operators preserving the Hamiltonian need to be supplemented by additional gauge transformations. As a consequence, the above relations are modified, with the appearance of additional phase shifts. Explicitly, the operators corresponding to rotations $`T`$ and reflections $`R`$ have the form

$`T\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _2,\mathrm{},\phi _N,\phi _1),`$ (20)
$`R\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\phi _N,\phi _{N1}+2\pi /N,\mathrm{},`$ (22)
$`\phi _1+2\pi (N1)/N),`$
where the shifts $`(2\pi /N)k`$ of the phase $`\phi _{Nk}`$ compensate for the external vector potential in the Hamiltonian (4) and guarantee its invariance. This modifies the relation (18) producing an additional phase shift:

$$R^2=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iQ/N).$$
(23)
The simplest way to make use of symmetry arguments is for the case $`N`$ even and $`Q`$ odd: we show that all states are degenerate in this case. Let us assume the opposite, i.e., that the eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is non-degenerate. Acting with $`T`$ and $`R`$ on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we reproduce the state up to phases $`t`$ and $`r`$ which satisfy the relations $`t^N=(tr)^2=1`$ and $`r^2=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iQ/N)`$; this set of equations is inconsistent for $`N`$ even and $`Q`$ odd, hence all levels indeed are degenerate.

To determine the level degeneracy and to treat the case of arbitrary $`N`$ and $`Q`$, we classify the representations of the symmetry group. To take into account the phase shift in (23), we include such phase shifts as new central elements $`\{Z^n|_{n=1}^N\}`$ in the group. The resulting set of defining relations is

$`Z^N=T^N=(TR)^2=1,R^2=Z^1,`$ (24)
$`ZR=RZ,ZT=TZ`$ (25)
(the last two relations are equivalent to the statement that $`Z`$ commutes with all group elements, i.e., it is a central element). The set of relations (25) defines a central extension of the group $`D_N`$ which we further denote $`ZD_N`$. Extending $`D_N`$ to $`ZD_N`$ by the central element $`Z`$ enlarges the number of elements in the group by a factor of $`N`$, and the number of elements of $`ZD_N`$ is $`2N^2`$.

In any particular irreducible representation, $`Z`$ is represented by a number (a $`N`$-fold root of unity, since $`Z^N=1`$):

$$Z=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iQ/N)$$
(26)
This formula establishes the relation between the representations of $`ZD_N`$ and the total charge $`Q`$ on the array.

Here we should mention that central extensions of symmetry groups are common in quantum mechanics. Indeed, the overall phase of the wave function has no physical meaning. Therefore the operator representing the product of two symmetry operations must equal the product of the two operators representing each of these operations only up to an overall phase factor. In other words, quantum mechanics admits not only linear representations of the symmetry group, but a more general class of projective representations . At the same time any projective representation of a group corresponds to a linear representation of a central extension of this group. Physical examples are numerous, including half-integer spin (projectively representing the rotation group), magnetic translations (projectively representing geometric translations), and anyons (projectively representing the braid group). An example resembling the analysis in the present paper is given by Kalatsky and Pokrovsky in their discussion of the spectrum of large spins in external crystal electric fields; the degeneracies then are described in terms of projective representations of a finite symmetry group which depend on the spin assuming integer or half-integer values.

In the following we first review the irreducible representations of $`D_N`$ and then discuss how it is modified when $`D_N`$ is extended to $`ZD_N`$.

Consider first the case with an odd number of islands $`N`$. Using the defining relations (17)–(19) we arrange the $`2N`$ elements of the group $`D_N`$ into the $`(N+3)/2`$ conjugacy classes: $`\{E\}`$, $`\{T^\nu ,T^\nu \}_{\nu =1}^{(N1)/2}`$, and $`\{T^mR|_{m=0}^{N1}\}`$. Firstly, we can construct two one-dimensional representations $`D^{(\pm )}`$ where all operators are represented by numbers. In these representations, the value of $`T`$ is determined uniquely: $`D_T^{(\pm )}=1`$, while $`R`$ may take two values: $`D_R^{(\pm )}=\pm 1`$. In addition, we can find $`(N1)/2`$ representations $`D^{\left(\mu \right)}`$ with dimensionality two. The explicit form of $`T`$ and $`R`$ in these representations is:

$$D_T^{\left(\mu \right)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_\mu & 0\\ 0& t_\mu ^1\end{array}\right),D_R^{\left(\mu \right)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(27)
where the parameter $`\mu `$ labeling representations takes integer values $`1,\mathrm{},(N1)/2`$, and $`t_\mu =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\mu /N)`$. We thus have found all the $`(N+3)/2`$ irreducible representations; they are listed in the character TABLE I.

The irreducible representations of the extended dihedral group $`ZD_N`$ are found in an analogous way. Assume $`N`$ odd first. Then $`ZD_N`$ contains $`N(N+3)/2`$ conjugacy classes: $`\{Z^n\}_{n=0}^{N1}`$, $`\{Z^nT^\nu ,Z^{n+\nu }T^\nu \}_{n=0,\nu =1}^{(N1),(N1)/2}`$, and $`\{Z^{nm}T^{2m}R|_{m=0}^{N1}\}_{n=0}^{N1}`$. The construction of the irreducible representations again follows the scheme described above: for one-dimensional representations $`D^{(\pm ,Q)}`$ we find $`2N`$ solutions: $`D_T^{(\pm ,Q)}=\sqrt{Z}`$ and $`D_R^{(\pm ,Q)}=\pm 1/\sqrt{Z}`$, where we choose that branch of the square root which puts $`\sqrt{Z}`$ onto one of the roots $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in/N)`$ \[for odd $`N`$ either $`\sqrt{Z}`$ or $`\sqrt{Z}`$ belongs to the set $`\{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in/N)|_{n=0}^{N1}\}`$, see Fig. 5\]. The remaining two-dimensional representations $`D^{(\mu ,Q)}`$ may again be constructed explicitly:

$$D_T^{(\mu ,Q)}=\sqrt{Z}\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_\mu & 0\\ 0& t_\mu ^1\end{array}\right),D_R^{(\mu ,Q)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ Z^1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(28)
where for $`\sqrt{Z}`$ we again take one of the roots $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in/N)`$, the parameter $`\mu `$ takes integer values $`1,\mathrm{},(N1)/2`$, and $`t_\mu =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\mu /N)`$. With $`2N`$ one-dimensional and $`N(N1)/2`$ two-dimensional representations we then have constructed all irreducible representations of $`ZD_N`$. The result is summarized in TABLE II.

A similar analysis for the qubit loop with an even number $`N`$ of junctions produces the character TABLES III and IV for the groups $`D_N`$ and $`ZD_N`$ respectively.

In summary, the energy levels of the Josephson junction loop may be classified according to the irreducible representations of its symmetry group $`ZD_N`$ at a given $`Q`$. The representation tables (Tables II and IV) look slightly different for odd and even $`N`$. All representations are either one- or two-dimensional. Given an odd $`N`$, for any value of $`Q`$, there are two one-dimensional representations and $`(N1)/2`$ two-dimensional representations. Given an even $`N`$, for even $`Q`$ we have four one-dimensional and $`(N/21)`$ two-dimensional representations, while for odd $`Q`$ there are no one-dimensional and $`N/2`$ two-dimensional representations. The representations may be distinguished by the eigenvalues of the operator $`T`$ involved, see Fig. 5.

Connecting back to our physical problem we can find the degeneracy of the states: for example, when $`N`$ is even and $`Q`$ is odd (see Fig. 5(c)) all states (including the ground state) are doubly degenerate. More work is needed to determine whether the ground state is degenerate in the other cases. Inspection of the ground state wave functions in the limits $`E_JE_C`$ and $`E_JE_C`$ shows that they transform with a representation involving the eigenvalues $`T=1`$ and $`T=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iQ/N)`$. Indeed, in the $`E_JE_C`$ limit, the state $`\{\varphi _i=\pi /N\}`$ is a $`T=1`$ eigenstate, while the state represented by the points $`\{\varphi _i=\pi /N,ik;\varphi _k=\pi /N2\pi \}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$ by virtue of (14) belongs to the eigenvalue $`T=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iQ/N)`$. In the limit $`E_JE_C`$, $`T`$ measures the total momentum of the repulsive bosons which (for a diagonal capacitance matrix) equals the total momentum of the tight-binding fermions. The latter is easily read off Fig. 3 and accounting for the shift $`\pi Q/N`$ due to the boundary condition (originating from the half-quantum flux) we again obtain the two eigenvalues $`T=1`$ and $`T=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iQ/N)`$ for the two lowest states. Thus if $`Q0(\mathrm{mod}N)`$ the two lowest states combine into a two-dimensional representation (and the same in both limits), resulting in a doubly degenerate ground state. For $`Q`$ divisible by $`N`$, the ground state corresponds to a one-dimensional representation of $`ZD_N`$, i.e., it is non-degenerate. As the ratio $`E_J/E_C`$ is swept from one limit to the other, the ground state continuously evolves preserving its degeneracy, unless a level-crossing occurs with a level of different symmetry. We have confirmed numerically that such a level crossing does not occur for the cases $`N=3`$ and $`N=4`$ using a diagonal capacitance matrix $`(C^1)_{ij}`$, (the results for $`N=3`$ are shown in Fig. 6), and we believe that this property holds for any $`N3`$.

## VI Requirements for interference observation

The experimental observation of the quantum interference effect discussed in this paper relies on several requirements on the Josephson junction loop. First, we have to assume that all quasi-particles are frozen out, which defines an upper bound on the temperature roughly estimated as $`T<T^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}/\mathrm{log}(\nu _0V\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sc}})`$, where $`\nu _0`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ is the superconducting gap, and $`V`$ is the volume of the system . For a micrometer-size aluminium loop similar to that used in the experimental work of van der Wal et al. , $`T^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}/15100\mathrm{mK}`$ and can be easily achieved.

Second, we assume that no charge tunneling is possible onto the array. In practice, we may allow the array to be connected to an external reservoir via a large resistor (to be able to change the charge on the array by an overall shift of gate voltages). Its resistance then must be much larger than the characteristic resistance scale $`R^{}(C\mathrm{\Delta })^1`$, where $`C`$ is the capacitance of the array, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the relevant energy scale (of the order of the splitting between the two lowest states). In the charge-dominated limit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_C`$ and $`R^{}`$ is of the order of the resistance quantum $`h/4e^2`$, in agreement with the conventional condition for charge quantization in the Coulomb blockade setup. In the phase-dominated limit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_C`$ and $`R^{}`$ is much larger than the resistance quantum. Also, under the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}>E_C^{\mathrm{loop}}`$ a ‘weak’ contact to the external world would allow an unpaired quasi-particle to escape from the loop, leaving only paired electrons in the system.

Third, the islands and the junctions are assumed to be identical. The precision to which this symmetry has to hold in the phase-dominated limit may be simply estimated from the condition that the tunneling actions agree up to small deviations of order one. The tunneling action scales as $`S(E_J/E_C)^{1/2}`$ and therefore the required precision is $`(\delta E_J/E_J),(\delta E_C/E_C)S^1`$. For a detectable splitting $`S`$ must be not too large; for a qubit design, $`S`$ is typically taken to be of order 5–10, and these conditions may well be satisfied.

The required precision on the magnitude of the external magnetic field (or, equivalently, on the flux through the loop) may be estimated from the condition that the level splitting due to the deviation of the flux from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ is much smaller than that from the tunneling between the qubit states. In the phase-dominated limit ($`E_JE_C`$) this produces the condition $`E_J\delta \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and hence $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0S^1e^S`$. In the opposite charge-dominated limit, it is sufficient to require that $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_01`$.

In conclusion we have discussed the spectral properties of symmetric Josephson junction loops, devices similar to those recently proposed as potential qubits for quantum computing. While in the charge-dominated regime with $`E_CE_J`$ the dependence of the ground-state degeneracy on the total charge on the island is a simple charging effect, this degeneracy derives from a subtle quantum interference in the phase-dominated limit $`E_JE_C`$. Several proposals on solid state realizations of quantum bits belong to the latter limit. From our analysis it follows that the requirements for observing the charge dependence of the qubit-level splitting are similar to those for the qubit operation (plus symmetry requirements which are easy to satisfy). The interference effects studied in this paper then may serve as a good test of quantum coherence in such qubit designs.

We thank M. Feigelman and O. Hallatschek for helpful discussions, and M. Troyer for providing the exact diagonalization code. We thank the Swiss National Fonds for financial support. L. I. thanks ETH Zürich for hospitality.


format: text

text:
# AGAPEROS: Searching for variable stars in the LMC Bar with the Pixel MethodThis work is based on data collected by the EROS collaboration.

## 1 Introduction

The microlensing searches, motivated by the study of dark matter in galaxies and its possible fraction of compact objects (hereafter Machos), have collected some unprecedented databases of images of neighbouring galaxies, and in particular of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). The microlensing candidates are compatible with large Macho masses, and exhibit long timescale variations, typically 10-200 days (Alcock et al. 1997abc, Renault et al. 1997, Palanque-Delabrouille et al. 1998, Alard et al. 1997, Udalski et al 1994, Ansari et al. 1999). Possible contamination by variable stars is often suggested (e.g. della Valle $`\&`$ Livio 1996), but no systematic searches for variable objects have been undertaken so far on the microlensing databases. Whereas particular variables, such as RR Lyrae and cepheids are relatively well understood, little statistical information is known about the Long Timescale and Long Period Variable stars (hereafter LT$`\&`$LPV), with timescales/periods in the range of $``$100 to $``$800 days, which are an important stage of stellar evolution. They are easily rejected for these microlensing searches either with a cut on marginal stellar populations identified on the colour magnitude diagram (hereafter CMD) or by their periodicity. Aperiodic signals which do not satisfy these simple criteria are however more difficult to discriminate and to select.

In this paper, we perform a selection of variable objects on pixel light curves covering a 0.25 deg2 field of the LMC Bar. We used the pixel light curves produced in Melchior et al (1999, hereafter paper I) adopting looser thresholds than those used for the selection of microlensing events in Melchior et al. (1998, hereafter paper II). In Sect. 2, we summarise the characteristics of the data set. In Sect. 3, we discuss the automatic selection procedure used to keep all significant genuine variable stars. In Sect. 4, we introduce a magnitude estimate for each variable and display its position in the colour-magnitude diagram. In Sect. 5, we describe the procedure used to obtain the equatorial coordinates. In Sect. 6, we cross-identify the selected variable stars with existing databases. Finally, we provide the catalogue in Sect. 7.

## 2 EROS CCD data and AGAPEROS pixel light curves

### 2.1 EROS CCD data

We use the EROS-1 CCD dataset, taken at ESO over the period 1991 December 18 to 1992 April 11, using a 40 cm telescope with a wide field camera composed of 16 CCD chips, each with 400$`\times `$579 pixels of 1.21 arcsec (Arnaud et al., 1994b, Queinnec, 1994, Aubourg et al., 1995 and Grison et al., 1995). Images of one field in the LMC Bar were taken in two wide non-standard blue ($`\overline{\lambda }=490`$ nm) and red ($`\overline{\lambda }=670`$ nm) filters, with a mean seeing of 2. arcsec.

The EROS-1 experiment (Arnaud et al. 1994a,b) was motivated by the study of dark compact objects in the dark halo of our Galaxy and contributed to show that the so-called brown dwarves could not be a significant component of the dark matter (Renault et al. 1997).

This dataset, treated in Paper I, is composed of some 1 000 images per CCD and per colour spread over 120 days. Only 10 CCD fields were available in 91-92, so we restrict our analysis to this field of 0.25 deg2.

### 2.2 AGAPEROS pixel light curves

For this selection, we use the pixel light curves produced in Paper I, as a first application to the EROS data of the Pixel Method (Baillon et al. 1993). In Paper I, we described in detail the data treatment we applied to the EROS-1 data set described in the previous paragraph. The frames were first geometrically and photometrically aligned with respect to a reference image. In order to decrease the level of noise on these 8-12 min exposures, we averaged the 10-20 frames available each night. Whereas this increases our sensitivity to possibly dim LT$`\&`$LPV, this is not optimised for the detection of short period variable stars, already studied elsewhere on the same data set (Grison et al 1995, Beaulieu et al. 1995, Hill $`\&`$ Beaulieu 1997).

The data are then arranged in super-pixel light curves, and an empiric seeing correction is then applied to each light curve. The limitations of this technique reside in the conversion of pixel fluxes in magnitudes, which can be done efficiently with kernel convolution techniques developed by Tomaney $`\&`$ Crotts (1996) and Alard (1998). Due the large filters of the EROS database and the short baseline (120 days) available with this data set, we choose to postpone this step to the next paper, which will produce periods with 3-years light curves together with a cross-identification with the DENIS photometry. In this paper, we provide a magnitude estimate for one epoch, together with an indication of blending, and put the emphasis on the selection procedure and the cross-identification with other catalogues.

The light curves we use in the following to select variable stars correspond to the super-pixel flux $`\varphi _n(t)`$ measured at different epochs $`n`$:

$$\varphi _n(t)=\varphi _{star}(t)+\varphi _{\mathrm{sky}}$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{sky}}`$ includes the sky and stellar background, and $`\varphi _{star}(t)`$ is the flux of the variable star.

## 3 Selection of genuine variable stars

We apply an automatic selection of genuine luminosity variations to the 91-92 dataset. Firstly, we introduce the definition of a variation. Secondly, we adjust the thresholds in order to keep genuine variations but reject most artifacts due to noise. Last, we carefully inspect selected light curves close to bad pixels.

### 3.1 Definition of a variation

A baseline flux ($`\varphi _{bl}`$) is calculated for each super-pixel light curve by sorting all points in order of increasing flux, with $`\varphi _{bl}`$ being the 10th sorted point. $`\sigma _{bl}`$ is the error associated with the baseline flux determination. For a sample taken from a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation $`\sigma `$ this estimate lies 1.3 $`\sigma `$ below the mean value of the distribution.

Deviations from this baseline are recorded when measurements lie $`3\sigma _n`$ above the baseline:

$$\sigma _n=\sqrt{\sigma _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\sigma _{bl}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _n^{}`$ is the error associated with each super-pixel flux computed in Paper I for night $`n`$. These deviations are quantified in each colour with a likelihood function (L):

$$L=\mathrm{ln}(\underset{n\mathrm{bump}}{}P(\varphi \varphi _n)\text{ given }\left\{\begin{array}{c}\varphi _{bl}\\ \sigma _n\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
where $`\varphi _n`$ is the super-pixel flux for the measurement $`n`$. All the measurements above $`\varphi _{bl}`$ are accounted for.

### 3.2 Minimal threshold

With the definition introduced above, we apply the selection procedure summarised in Tab. 1.

First of all we excise the pixels, covering 3.4% of the CCD fields, which exhibit obvious spurious variations (such as bad columns). In addition, in order to remove automatically artifacts due to bad pixels, we remove from the light curves the epochs for which there is at least one pixel which datum is at zero within a 11$`\times `$11 window centred on the super-pixel. (1) We require a regularity condition to remove the noise: the ratio $`\sigma _1/\sigma _2`$ has to be smaller than 0.6 in at least one colour, with:

$$\sigma _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{2}{3(N2)}\underset{n=2}{\overset{N1}{}}\left[\frac{\varphi _{n+1}\varphi _{n1}}{2}\varphi _n\right]^2$$
(4)
$$\sigma _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{(N1)}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\varphi _n\varphi _{mean}\right]^2$$
(5)
where $`\varphi _{mean}`$ is the mean super-pixel flux and $`N`$ is the total number of measurements on each light curve. (2) We then select the light curves which vary such that $`L>400`$ in at least one colour. As there are as many super-pixels as pixels, a genuine variable is expected to affect all the super-pixels within the seeing spot. (3) We search for clusters of super-pixels (using a Friend of Friends algorithm), and keep the central pixel of the clusters if (4) the previous requirements are also satisfied for these pixels and, if (5) the number $`N_{clus}`$ of super-pixels that compose each cluster is larger than 6. These requirements eliminate most artifacts due to bright stars111Super-pixels around a few bright stars exhibit artifacts such that the spatial correlation of the position of these super-pixels looks like a partial ring or an arc. and CCD defects that do not exhibit a clear spatial PSF-like pattern. We finally keep 747 super-pixel light curves. The sensitivity of these thresholds is illustrated in Fig. 1. Among the 747 selected variations, two have been counted twice222For computing reasons, each chip has been cut into two pieces with an overlapping region through the analysis., leaving 745 independent light curves.

### 3.3 Artifact removals

We select 237 light curves for which there is at least one bad pixel (saturated or set at zero) within a 21$`\times `$21 window centred on the selected pixel for at least one epoch and at least one colour. A careful visual inspection of these light curves shows 121 genuine variable stars against 116 artifacts, subsequently removed. Figure 2 shows that the removed light curves are mainly concentrated close to the edges, whereas the distribution of the kept light curves (among the 237) is more uniform. We finally end with a catalogue of 631 variable stars.

## 4 Magnitude estimation

Whereas the pixel method of analysis is able to detect variable stars beyond the crowding limit, it does not measure photometry – total flux – of these objects, that can be blended or even unresolved on part of the light curves. Obtaining their photometry would give a first indication of the type of the variable stars. Hence in this section, we associate a magnitude and colour to each flux measurement.

### 4.1 Pseudo-aperture photometry

As discussed in Paper II, the flux of the super-pixel is composed of the fraction of the flux of the star plus the local background (from sky and undetected stars). For our sample of variable stars, we can presume that there is a star within the corresponding super-pixel and that its flux significantly contributes to this super-pixel, at least at the maximum of the variation. Because of the crowding conditions, standard background estimates (circular annulus for example, see Stetson (1987)) fail and cannot be used in an automatic way. Hence, we choose to perform a pseudo-aperture photometry as follows. For an image taken in the middle of the period of observation (JD2448678.3) and with an average seeing, we use the PSF fitting procedure of DAOPHOT (Stetson, 1987) to measure the fluxes of the resolved stars, and the background below them. This thus gives a local estimate of the background that is the less affected by the crowding of the field. Then for each selected super-pixel we look for the detected star that is closest. The background estimate associated with this star is supposed to be the same as the one present below the variable star (and is even identical if the variable stars are resolved on this reference frame). This background is subtracted from the super-pixel flux. This flux is then corrected for the seeing fraction and converted into a magnitude, corresponding to an isolated star.

Whereas this definition of the sky-background is rather robust to the crowding conditions, the magnitude estimation is not necessary so, as some additional flux (stellar background) could contribute to the super-pixel due to neighbours. We thus quantify the blending with the ratio $`\varphi _c/\varphi _0`$ computed as follows: the flux $`\varphi _c`$ is the averaged value computed along the light curve of the central pixel of the super-pixel, and the flux $`\varphi _0`$ is a similar average of the 8 surrounding pixels within the super-pixel. The behaviour of this parameter is described in the Appendix.

Optimised star detection with DAOPHOT allows to detect $`\mathrm{135\hspace{0.17em}098}`$ stars in blue and $`\mathrm{142\hspace{0.17em}870}`$ stars in red. The corresponding luminosity function computed with DAOPHOT for all the stars present on the studied field, exhibited in Fig. 3a, shows that the star detection is in first approximation complete down to magnitude 18 in red and 19 in blue. Figure 3b shows that the magnitude distributions at the same epoch for the selected variable stars peak at the bright end, whereas the stars are redder than average with $`B_{\mathrm{EROS}}R_{\mathrm{EROS}}2`$. Whereas it is difficult to compute our detection efficiencies as no reliable theoretical distribution of variable stars is available, it is clear that we do not detect a population of variable stars unresolved at minimum, even though we do detect a tail of this distribution with very dim stars in at least one colour.

### 4.2 Colour-magnitude diagram

Figure 4 displays the position of the 631 variable stars in the CMD. This CMD has been obtained with the resolved stars detected with DAOPHOT in both colours. The conversion of the EROS magnitudes into a standard system has been studied by Grison et al. (1995), but introduces significant systematic errors especially for stars with $`B_{EROS}R_{EROS}>1`$. We hence choose to work in the EROS system. The crowding limit prevents the detection of stars with $`R_{EROS}>19`$. The main sequence and red clump are clearly identified. Very little variations of the CMD are observed from one chip to another suggesting a uniform stellar population across this field. The vast majority of the detected variable stars lies in the red part. A visual inspection of the corresponding light curves shows that they are compatible with LT$`\&`$LPV. This catalogue offers the perspective to systematically study the later stages of stellar evolution within the LMC Bar. However, the isochrones superimposed on Fig. 4 illustrate the difficulty to classify variable stars with the sole CMD, as it is impossible to disentangle their age and mass for a given metalicity. The photometric system made it also inappropriate for further interpretation with this sole data. Due to their complexity and the difficulties to model them, the LT$`\&`$LPV are better characterised in the IR, as addressed in a subsequent paper. Some “bluer” objects have also been detected and they will be classify when we study their periodicity.

As shown in Fig. 4, variable stars not significantly affected by crowding ($`\varphi _c/\varphi _0>3`$ ) lie in areas of the colour-magnitude diagram corresponding to stars expected variable. Those affected by blending and crowding will have to be treated with caution. In the CMD areas where the larger number of LT$`\&`$LPV have been detected, in the magnitude ($`R_{EROS}=14.615.8`$) and colour ($`B_{EROS}R_{EROS}=1.72.3`$) ranges, about 17$`\%`$ of the stars exhibit a variation detected with our analysis.

It is also clear that the vast majority of the detected variable stars are above the crowding limit. The few outliers that can be noticed correspond to stars unresolved in at least one colour, but their number does not exceed 5 $`\%`$ of the total. In terms of microlensing, this means that events due to unresolved stars in the LMC will not be significantly contaminated by the bulk of variable stars. In further galaxies, like M 31, variable stars will be a more troublesome affair, and will have to be carefully studied (e.g. Crotts & Tomaney 1996). However, high amplification microlensing events are far less likely to be mimicked by an intrinsic variation (Ansari et al. 1999), and will allow to probe possible biases introduced by variable stars.

## 5 Astrometric reduction

The rectangular sky area covered by the EROS-1 chips is enclosed in a circle of radius $``$30$`\mathrm{}`$ centred on the position $`\alpha =`$05h21m52.1s ; $`\delta =69\mathrm{°}34\mathrm{}16\mathrm{}`$ (2000.0). In this region, the density of PMM astrometric standards333http://ftp.nofs.navy.mil/projects/pmm/ is highly irregular, e.g. four $``$20$`\mathrm{}\times `$ 15$`\mathrm{}`$ areas are completely empty. This is mainly due to the crowding of the survey plates used at USNO. We therefore chose to use a U plate taken at the ESO 1m Schmidt telescope to define the secondary astrometric standards. This plate was scanned with the MAMA microdensitometer444MAMA (http://dsmama.obspm.fr) is operated by INSU (Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers) and Observatoire de Paris., and reduced to the International Celestial Reference System (ICRS)555http://hpiers.obspm.fr/webiers/general/syframes/SY.html with the ACT catalogue666http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/VizieR?-source=I/246. Thanks to the modest sensitivity of the U emulsion/filter combination, the effects of crowding are reduced. A remarkably regular distribution of stars is detected with the SExtractor software (Bertin $`\&`$ Arnouts, 1996), with on average 2 700 stars per chip.

The secondary standards ($`1500`$/chip) are identified to EROS stars using a first linear transformation based on some 15 visually cross-identified stars per chip. The astrometric reduction software (Robichon et al. 1995) is then run using this set of references. After iteration, the final 2nd order reduction keeps 1000 stars per chip with final rms deviation of the order of 0.2$`\mathrm{}`$.

According to the galactic model777http://WWW.obs$``$besancon.fr/www/modele/s-tab.html from Besançon, more than 95$`\%`$ of the secondary references belong to LMC. Furthermore, we check that the global proper motion of the LMC (Kroupa $`\&`$ Bastian, 1997), together with upper limits on its internal velocity dispersion cannot affect the positions of our standards by more than 30 mas, over the 848-days separating the ESO plate from the EROS reference.

## 6 Cross-identifications

The detected variable stars are uniformly distributed along the CCD chips, and no obvious bias (due e.g. to internal extinction) are suspected. In order to appreciate the sensitivity of our analysis, we cross-identified this catalogue with previous works. Among the 631 variable stars presented here, 72 have already been studied elsewhere. We considered the main catalogues which covered this area, namely the catalogues of LT$`\&`$LPV by Hughes (1989), eclipsing binaries and cepheids by EROS (Grison et al., 1994 and Beaulieu et al. 1996), radio sources (Marx et al., 1999), X-ray sources (Haberl & Pietsch, 1999), as well as the General Catalogue of Variable Stars888We used the electronic version of the GCVS (http://www.sai.msu.su/groups/cluster/gcvs/gcvs/), supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. (Artiukhina et al., 1995) and the NED999The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. data-base. We define a genuine cross-identification any object whose offsets with respect to the variable objects detected here are smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}=5\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{\mathrm{max}}=5\mathrm{}`$.

Among the 58 LT$`\&`$LPV found by Hughes (1989) in this field, 41 have been detected here, 12 are missed due to CCD defects (one of those is rejected with the visual inspection described in Sect. 3.3). This gives the order of magnitude of the completeness of our sample over a 120-day window: we typically miss up to 20$`\%`$ of genuine variable stars due to CCD defects. More interestingly, the last 5 missing LT$`\&`$LPV escape our selection for no obvious reason. One of them (SHV0527122-695006) has been subsequently observed in the near-infrared (Hughes $`\&`$ Wood 1990): it did not follow the (K, $`\mathrm{log}P`$) relation, and was interpreted as a supergiant or a foreground Mira. According to the DAOPHOT magnitudes measured at epoch JD=2448678.3 B$`{}_{\mathrm{EROS}}{}^{}=15.7`$ and R$`{}_{\mathrm{EROS}}{}^{}=13.7`$, it is consistent with a supergiant. The 4 remaining, namely SHV0516251-693241, SHV0519415-693441, SHV0522220-694441, SHV0522251-692902 – not observed subsequently by Hughes $`\&`$ Wood (1990) – were reported by Hughes (1989) with a low amplitude ($`\mathrm{\Delta }I0.5`$ mag.) and 3 of them were only marginally periodic. Moreover, our non-detection can be explained for some of them by changes in mass-loss rates as suggested by Whitelock (1997). The extension of this work with a longer baseline together with DENIS photometry is expected to provide further arguments about this kind of behaviour (in preparation).

The short periodic variable stars from the EROS catalogue (Grison et al., 1994, and Beaulieu et al., 1996) are missed here for most of them: short timescale variations are broken by the averaging procedure as explained in Sect. 2. Only 22 out of the 181 variable stars previously detected by EROS are present in this catalogue. In addition, 5 of the 7 pre-main-sequence candidates published by Beaulieu et al. (1996) have been detected. None of the radio-sources, detected by Marx et al. (1997), are lying in the studied field. 2 X-ray sources detected with ROSAT (Haberl & Pietsch, 1999) are present in the field, but none of our variable stars lies in the 90$`\%`$CL error box of those sources. 29 extragalactic sources (but not necessarily variable) from NED are present in the field, none is among the variable stars detected here. Last, whereas 129 sources from the GCVS are lying in the field, 52 are selected here. Most of them were also in the catalogues mentioned above. According to the GCVS classification, among these 52 variables, 17 are Miras, 26 semi-regulars, 2 irregulars, and 7 cepheids.

A total of 72 sources out of 631 were previously reported, 57 of which have a published period. Those are presented in Fig. 5: they are clearly of the order of 100-300 days. A visual inspection confirms that besides a few short periods, these timescales are quite representative of the bulk of a distribution dominated by LT$`\&`$LPV.

## 7 Catalogue

LT$`\&`$LPV (“Red” variable stars) represent the bulk of the stars presented in this catalogue. Figures 6 and 7 show typical light curves detected with the corresponding finding charts. Amplitudes measured over 120 days can be as low as 0.1 mag up to several magnitudes, depending on the timescale, and brightness range. The limitations (in the photometry) due to the crowding are also illustrated. The error bars (estimated in Paper I) account for the level of photon noise and other residual errors, but they do not account for the effect of crowding on the star flux. For light curves with $`\varphi _c/\varphi _03`$, error bars are underestimated with respect to the scatter along the variation. This explains why the amplitude of variations in blue can be smaller (or comparable) than in red for a few LT$`\&`$LPV: the crowding is more important in blue and larger amplitudes of variation are expected on dimmer stars. Hence, we do not attempt to extract information about the amplitude, but provide magnitude estimates at one epoch with the $`\varphi _c/\varphi _0`$ ratio. For most of them, the timescale of the variation is much longer than the period of observation, and the periodicity will not be studied here.

Table 2 contains the following informations. Column 1: The position, at J2000.0 epoch, is incorporated into the name of each variable, in accordance with IAU convention (Dickel et al. 1987); Column 2: N/X/Y: chip number N and position (X,Y) on the chip. There were 10 chips on the EROS-1 CCD camera. Column 3: the $`\varphi _c/\varphi _0`$ ratio in blue and red; Column 4: the $`B_{EROS}`$ and $`R_{EROS}`$ magnitude estimate at epoch JD=2448678.3; Column 5: the number of stars detected by DAO in the super-pixel at epoch JD=2448678.3 in B/R; Column 6 and 7: the $`B_{EROS}`$ and $`R_{EROS}`$ magnitudes (at the same epoch) of the closest stars as estimated by DAOPHOT. Figures in bracket (on a second line) provide the magnitude of another star detected in the super-pixel. Column 8: identification with the other databases, discussed in the text. The Harvard variable numbers are given, as well as variables (WBP) detected by Wood et al. (1985).

The finding charts in red are presented for each variable in Fig. 8. They correspond to the epoch for which the stellar magnitude and blending has been studied (JD=2448678.3). Each chart is labelled with the name of the variable. A cross indicates the position at which the variable star has been detected.

## 8 Conclusion

Besides being a by-product of the microlensing searches, the variable stars constitute their background and their understanding and discrimination are important (e.g. della Valle & Livio (1996)). They need to be catalogued for any on-line microlensing searches (cf. MACHO and EROSII). In this paper, we have produced a comprehensive catalogue of 631 variable stars selected over a 0.25 deg2 field in the LMC Bar with the Pixel Method applied to a 120-day window, with a sampling of about one measurement per day. For each variable star, we provide an astrometric position accurate within $`1\mathrm{}`$, together with a finding chart. The study of their position in the CMD shows that this catalogue is dominated by a population of LT$`\&`$LPV, while a few “bluer” variables have also been detected. Cross-identification with existing catalogues shows that 11 % of them have already been studied elsewhere. We hence enlarge by a factor of 10 the number of LT$`\&`$LPV detected in this area of the LMC Bar.

The pixel analysis presented here allows a selection of variable objects independently of a photometry. It hence uses all the information present in the frames but does not provide a photometry for these objects. It is complementary to the image subtraction techniques. We have shown that not surprisingly the pixel light curves are significantly polluted by blending, especially in blue and that their conversion in magnitude can only be rough. Hence, for each variable star, we provide an indicator of blending in both colours. The preliminary study of these variable stars together with their cross-identification with previous works show that our photometry does not introduce significant bias on the overall distribution. Recent improvements of the image subtraction techniques developed for microlensing searches (Alard 1999, Alcock et al. 1999a,b) will have to be considered for the future to improve the photometry of the variable stars detected in such crowded fields (e.g. Olech et al. 1999). However, most of these objects are Long Period Variables better characterized with IR photometry than optical non-standard photometry anyway.

The limitation of this dataset is hence reached and it needs to be complemented by other data. In a companion paper, we will extend these selected light curves to the whole EROS I baseline (850 days window), with the 1992-94 data taken with a different set of filters. This will enable us to study the periodicity of these variable stars. In a forthcoming paper, we will cross-identify these variable stars with the IJK photometry of the DENIS catalogue.

Table 2. Catalogue of the variable objects detected in this paper. They are sorted in order of increasing right ascension. It can be retrieved at http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/htbin/Cat?J/A$`\%`$2bAS/145/11.

Fig.8. $`1.2\mathrm{}\times 1.2\mathrm{}`$ finding charts for each variable in the REROS filter. It is available in the paper version of the article at A$`\&`$AS or electronically at http://www.edpsciences.com/articles/astro/full/2000/13/ds9463/node10.html.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the EROS collaboration (http://www.lal.in2p3.fr/recherche/eros/erosa.html) for giving us their 91-92 data, and Marc Moniez for a careful reading of this manuscript. The U plate used for the astrometry was taken at the ESO Schmidt telescope at La Silla. We thank the MAMA team for scanning and reducing this plate. We acknowledge Dave Monet for the informations he kindly provided on the PMM/USNO catalogue. We are particularly grateful to C. Lamy for her useful help on data handling during this work, done in part on the computers of PCC-Collège de France. A.-L. Melchior has been supported by a European contract ERBFMBICT972375 at QMW. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Vizier service (Ochsenbein, 1997) at CDS has been used throughout this work.

## Appendix A Limitations of the Pixel Method

Figure 8 displays the behaviour of the ratio $`\varphi _c/\varphi _0`$ computed for the variable stars of the catalogue. Figure 9 compares our magnitude estimate with the DAOPHOT one for the selected light curves.


text:
# Dyadosphere bending of light

## 1 Introduction

The magnitude of the velocity of light described by effective nonlinear electromagnetic theories depends on the field dynamics. Such dependence implies an effective modification of the flat background metric into a curved one, which is accentuated when gravity processes are taken into account. The most famous examples of these aspects are the well known implications of QED in curved spacetimes. The weak field limit of the complete one loop QED is known as the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian (Heisenberg and Euler Euler (1936), Schwinger Schwinger (1951)) which yields several important results such as, the phenomenon of birefringence (Birula and Birula Birula (1970), Adler Adler (1971), De Lorenci et al. Lorenci (2000)), which describes the distinct velocity of light propagation for each polarization direction. There are many works dealing with the applications of nonlinear electrodynamics, especially, concerning its coupling with a gravitational field. In this context, Drummond and Hathrell (Drummond (1980)) showed the possibility of superluminal velocities in certain spacetime configurations. Other interesting cases can be found in Novello et al. (Mario (1989)), Daniels and Shore (Shore (1994)), Latorre et al. (Latorre (1995)) and Shore (Shore2 (1996)).

Recently, Ruffini (Ruffini (1998)) and also Preparata et al. (Preparata (1998)) called our attention to a special region just outside the horizon of charged black holes where the electric field goes beyond its classical limit, implying a situation where effects of vacuum fluctuations should be considered. They called such region the dyadosphere. Assuming the existence of such a region, we could consider the possible consequences for the trajectories of light rays that cross it. In this work, we analyze the consequences for the phenomenon of light bending when vacuum fluctuation effects are taken into account. Under such conditions, the paths of light do not follow the usual geodesic of the gravitational field, so it is necessary to consider the effects of the modified QED vacuum (Drummond and Hathrell Drummond (1980), Dittrich and Gies Gies (1998), De Lorenci et al. Lorenci (2000), Novello et al. NovelloPRD (2000) ).

In section 2 we perform the coupling between nonlinear electrodynamics and gravity. We calculate the correction for the Reissner-Nordstron metric from the first contribution of the weak field limit of one loop QED. In section 3 we present the light cone conditions for the case of wave propagation in the Reissner-Nordstron spacetime modified by QED vacuum polarization effects - the dyadosphere region. Finally, in section 4, we derive the field equations for such a situation and evaluate its contribution to the bending of light. Some comments on lensing effects are presented in the appendix.

## 2 The minimal coupling between gravitation and non-linear electrodynamics

The Einstein gravitational field equation is given by

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is written in terms of the Newtonian constant $`G`$ and light velocity $`c`$ as $`\kappa =8\pi G/c^4`$.

Let us consider a class of theories defined by the general Lagrangian $`L=L(F)`$, where $`F=F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$. The corresponding energy momentum tensor has the form

$$T_{\mu \nu }=Lg_{\mu \nu }+4L_FF_{\mu \alpha }F_\nu ^\alpha $$
(2)
where $`L_F`$ denotes the derivative of $`L`$ with respect to $`F`$. By considering minimal coupling of gravity to nonlinear electrodynamics, we obtain the following equations of motion, besides Einstein equations (1),

$`\left(L_FF^{\mu \nu }\right)_\nu =0`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{}{F}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}=0`$ (4)
where double bar ($``$) represents the covariant derivative with respect to the curved background $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the dual electromagnetic tensor. For the static and spherically symmetric solution, the geometry is

$$ds^2=A(r)dt^2A(r)^1dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2$$
(5)
where $`A(r)`$ is determined by the field equations. We set the only non zero component of the electromagnetic tensor to be $`F^{01}=f(r)`$. Thus, the combined system of electromagnetism and gravity, equations (1), (3) and (4), reduces to the set

$`r{\displaystyle \frac{A(r)}{r}}+A(r)=1+\kappa \left[r^2L+4r^2L_Ff(r)^2\right]`$ (6)
$`L_Ff(r)={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{4r^2}}.`$ (7)
We are interested in the analysis of the weak field limit of the complete one-loop approximation of QED, given by the effective Lagrangian (Heisenberg and Euler Euler (1936), Schwinger Schwinger (1951))

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{F}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{m_e^2s}}{s^3}}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^2s^2G}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{2e^2s^2(F+iG)}}{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{2e^2s^2(F+iG)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2s^2F}{12}}1\right]`$
where $`G\stackrel{}{F}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }`$. In the limit of low frequency $`\nu <<m_ec^2/h`$ one obtains the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{4}F+\frac{\mu }{4}\left(F^2+\frac{7}{4}G^2\right)$$
(9)
with

$$\mu \frac{2\alpha ^2}{45m_e^4}.$$
(10)
Since we only consider the electric component of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ there is no contribution due to the invariant $`G`$. Using Lagrangian (9), the integration of equation (6) is

$$A(r)=1\frac{2m}{r}\frac{\kappa }{r}^r𝑑r\left[\frac{r^2f(r)^2}{2}+3\mu r^2f(r)^4\right]$$
(11)
where, in order to set the value of the first constant of integration, we have assumed the Schwarzschild solution in the limit of vanishing charge. Calculating the function $`f(r)`$ from equation (7) in the appropriate order of approximation $`𝒪(\mu )`$, one gets

$$f(r)=\frac{Q}{r^2}4\mu \frac{Q^3}{r^6}.$$
(12)
Introducing this result in equation (11) we finally obtain the expression for $`A(r)`$:

$$A(r)=1\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{\kappa Q^2}{2r^2}\frac{\kappa \mu Q^4}{5r^6}.$$
(13)
The Reissner-Nordstron case arises from this solution for the limit case $`\mu =0`$. Equations (5) and (13) yield the correct form of the spacetime geometry taking into account the one-loop QED in the first order of approximation.

Since (13) is an approximation, it cannot be applied to the cases for which $`1/r^61/r^2`$. Thus the contribution of the last term in this equation is negligible for two reasons: $`\mu `$ is very small and $`1/r^6<<1/r^2`$.

In the next sections, however, it is shown that, due to the non-linearity of the electrodynamics in the dyadosphere, there will be an additional correction which is comparable to the Reissner-Nordstron factor in terms of the radial variable.

One might want to investigate the effect of this metric on the gravitational lensing of light propagating in the vicinity of a charged compact object. In the appendix we apply the formalism developed by Frittelli et al. (Frittelli (2000)) to the background spacetime defined by equation (5).

## 3 Light cone condition

In the case of nonlinear electrodynamics, e.g., Euler-Heisenberg effective theory, the wave propagation will suffer a correction due to vacuum polarization effects. Such correction is usually presented in terms of a light cone condition, which in our case, is given by

$$k^\alpha k^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }=4\frac{L_{FF}}{L_F}F^{\mu \alpha }F^\nu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}k_{\mu }^{}k_\nu .$$
(14)
It is worth mentioning that there will be two different modes of propagation, one for each polarization direction (De Lorenci et al. Lorenci (2000)). Here we will deal only with the mode present in equation (14).

Condition (14) can be presented in a more appealing form as a slight modification of the background geometry

$$(g^{\mu \nu }+4\frac{L_{FF}}{L_F}F^{\mu \alpha }F^\nu {}_{\alpha }{}^{})k_\mu k_\nu =0.$$
(15)
This property allows us to introduce the concept of an effective geometry (Novello et al. NovelloPRD (2000)) such that

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }+4\frac{L_{FF}}{L_F}F^{\mu \alpha }F^\nu _\alpha $$
(16)
for which $`k_\mu `$ is a null vector. Hence, we can use the previous method to derive the bending of light in the presence of vacuum polarization effects due to nonlinear electrodynamics. Using such a definition, $`k_\mu `$ is a null vector in the effective geometry. It can be shown that the integral curves of the vector $`k_\nu `$ are geodesics. In order to accomplish this, an underlying Riemannian structure for the manifold associated with the effective geometry will be required. In other words, this implies a set of Levi-Civita connection coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\alpha _{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\alpha _{\nu \mu }`$, by means of which there exists a covariant differential operator (the covariant derivative), which we denote by a semi-colon, such that

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }_{;\lambda }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }_{,\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu _{\sigma \lambda }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\sigma \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\nu _{\sigma \lambda }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\sigma \mu }=0.$$
(17)
From (17) it follows that the effective connection coefficients are completely determined from the effective geometry by the usual Christoffel formula.

Contraction of equation (17) with $`k_\mu k_\nu `$ results

$$k_\mu k_\nu \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }_{,\lambda }=2k_\mu k_\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu _{\sigma \lambda }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\sigma \nu }.$$
(18)
Differentiating $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0`$, we have

$$2k_{\mu ,\lambda }k_\nu \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }+k_\mu k_\nu \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }_{,\lambda }=0.$$
(19)
From these expressions we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }k_{\mu ;\lambda }k_\nu =0.$$
(20)
Since the propagation vector $`k_\mu =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{,\mu }`$ is a gradient, one can write $`k_{\mu ;\lambda }=k_{\lambda ;\mu }`$. Thus, equation (20) reads

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }k_{\lambda ;\mu }k_\nu =0$$
(21)
which states that $`k_\mu `$ is a geodesic vector. Since it is also a null vector in the effective geometry $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$, it follows that its integral curves are therefore null geodesics.

## 4 The influence of QED on the trajectory of light

Taking the Lagrangian (9), and setting the only non-zero component of electromagnetic tensor to be $`F^{01}=f(r)`$, it follows that

$`F=2f(r)^2`$ (22)
$`L_F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mu f(r)^2`$ (23)
$`L_{FF}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}.`$ (24)
Since we are analyzing the spherically symmetric and static solution of a charged compact object, we set the components of the background metric to be the same as the ones presented in equation (5). Thus, the non-vanishing components of the effective metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$, up to terms quadratic on the constant $`\mu `$, are

$`\stackrel{~}{g}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`A(r)^1[1+8\mu f(r)^2]`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`A(r)[1+8\mu f(r)^2]`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}^{22}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{22}`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}^{33}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{33}`$ (28)
where $`A(r)`$ is given by (13). In what follows we will consider only the stronger term arising from quantum corrections. All other terms will be neglected. The function $`f(r)`$ is calculated from the equations of the electromagnetic field, and its value is set by equation (12). Using these results we obtain the line element:

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[18\mu f(r)^2\right]\left[A(r)dt^2A(r)^1dr^2\right]`$ (29)
$``$ $`r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2.`$
From the variational principle, the following equations of motion are obtained:

$`\left[18\mu f(r)^2\right]A(r)\dot{t}=constanth_o`$ (30)
$`r^2\dot{\phi }=constantl_o`$ (31)
$`\dot{r}^2={\displaystyle \frac{h_o^2}{\left[18\mu f(r)^2\right]^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_o^2A(r)}{r^2\left[18\mu f(r)^2\right]}}.`$ (32)
In these equations dots mean derivatives with respect to parameter $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$, and we have adjusted the initial conditions $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and $`\dot{\theta }=0`$. Performing the change of variable $`r=1/v`$ and expressing the derivatives with respect to the angular variable $`\phi `$ we obtain from (30)-(32):

$$v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{h_o^2}{l_o^2}\frac{1}{[18\mu f(r)^2]^2}\frac{A(r)v^2}{18\mu f(r)^2}$$
(33)
where $`v^{}=dv/d\phi `$. In the required order of approximation, functions $`A(v)`$ and $`f(v)`$ are given by

$`f(v)`$ $`=`$ $`Qv^2`$ (34)
$`A(v)`$ $`=`$ $`12mv+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa Q^2v^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mu Q^4v^6}{5}}.`$ (35)
Thus, taking the derivative of equation (33) and using the above results, it follows that

$$v^{\prime \prime }+v=3mv^2\left(132\frac{\mu h_o^2}{\kappa l_o^2}Q\right)\kappa Q^2v^3+𝒪(\mu ^2,v^4).$$
(36)
This shows that the contribution coming from QED is of the same order of magnitude as the classical Reissner-Nordstron charge term. One should notice that equation (36) could also be derived using the formalism developed by Virbhadra et al. (Virbhadra (1998)).

## 5 Conclusion

In this work we investigate the bending of light in the dyadosphere, a region just outside an event horizon of a non-rotating charged black hole, in which the electromagnetic field exceeds the critical value predicted by Heisenberg and Euler. In such region the propagation of light is affected not only by the gravitational field, but also by the modified QED vacuum. We show that by considering effects due to QED, the modified metric in the first order of approximation is given by equation (29).

We also show that the contribution from this effect appears in a significative order in terms of the radial variable. Indeed, it is of the same order of the charged term that arises from Reissner-Nordstron solution. Equation (36) shows that the correction term depends on both the ratio $`h_0/l_0`$ and the charge $`Q`$. Thus, for photons with the same frequency propagating in the dyadosphere, the effect will be stronger for those whose trajectory is closer to the center of attraction.

Since we obtained a contribution coming from QED of the same order of magnitude as the classical Reissner-Nordstrom charge term, an interesting extension of this work could be studying gravitational lensing effects for the metric presented in equation (29). It is also worth analysing the effects arising from the magnetic field due to the rotation of a charged compact object.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Comité Français d’Evaluation de la Coopération Universitaire avec le Brésil (COFECUB).

## Appendix A Comments on lensing effect

Some interesting references about the lensing effect can be found in Virbhadra et al. (Virbhadra (1998)), Kling and Newman (Kling (1999)), Frittelli et al. (Frittelli (2000)) and Kling et al. (Newman (1999)). Kling and Newman (Kling (1999)), for instance, investigated aspects of light cones in the Schwarzschild geometry, making connections to gravitational lensing theory and to the so-called ‘null surface formulation’. Later Frittelli et al. (Frittelli (2000)) proposed a definition of an exact lens equation without reference to a background spacetime and developed a formalism, which is then applied to the Schwarzschild solution.

Following this formalism, the exact gravitational lens equation in the framework of the metric (5) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(l,l_o,l_p)=\pm [\pi 2{\displaystyle _{l_o}^{l_p}}{\displaystyle \frac{dl}{\sqrt{l_p^2A(l_p)l^2A(l)}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _l^{l_o}}{\displaystyle \frac{dl^{}}{\sqrt{l_p^2A(l_p)l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}A(l^{})}}}].`$ (37)
In the above equation, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(l,l_o,l_p)`$ is the angular position of the source with respect to the direction defined by the observer and the lensing object (the optical axis) and $`l=1/\sqrt{2}r`$ is the inverse radial distance. It follows that $`l_o=1/\sqrt{2}r_o`$ and $`l_p=1/\sqrt{2}r_p`$, where $`r_o`$ and $`r_p`$ are, respectively, the position of the observer and the minimum distance between the light path and the lens. As usual, the origin of the coordinate system is the position of the lens.

A generic point in the light path is given in spherical coordinates by

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _o\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{sin}\theta _o\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ (38)
$`\mathrm{tan}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi _o\mathrm{sin}\theta _o\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{cos}\phi _o\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\phi _o\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta _o)}{\mathrm{cos}\phi _o\mathrm{sin}\theta _o+\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{sin}\phi _o\mathrm{sin}\gamma +\mathrm{cos}\phi _o\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta _o)}}.`$
The coordinate $`\gamma `$ is the azimuthal angle of the light path with respect to the optical axis and the observer is located at $`(\phi _o,\theta _o)`$.

Applying equation (A) to the function $`A(r)`$ derived in (13) it follows that there is no significant contribution from QED to the lensing effect for the same reasons discussed at the end of section 2.