text:
# Hidden symmetry of the three-dimensional Einstein–Maxwell equations

## I Introduction

The subject whether Einstein’s field equations have hidden symmetry or not has been studied for a long time (see Ref.  for a comprehensive review). As is well known, when the four-dimensional Einstein–Maxwell field admits a non-null Killing vector field, the system may be described in terms of two complex scalar potentials . The equations of motion for their potentials are derived from the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model action, which is invariant under the $`SU(2,1)`$ group acting . The invariant transformations of the $`\sigma `$-model action transform a solution of the Einstein equation into other solutions . These transformations contain three types of transformation: (i) the electromagnetic duality rotation, (ii) the twisting of the Killing vector field, and (iii) the generation of the electromagnetic field. The transformation (i) is just the Fitzgerald transformation in Maxwell theory, which is still valid if coupled with gravity. A discrete version of this was discovered by Bonnor . The transformation (ii) mixes the norm of the Killing vector with the twist potential, and includes the Ehlers transformation  which transforms a given static solution into its twisted version. The transformation (iii) is the so-called Harrison transformation . This transforms given vacuum solution into its charged version.

Let us turn to the three-dimensional gravity, then consider whether above three types of transformation do exist or not. The duality between electric and magnetic fields is mathematically based on the Hodge duality, and consequently fails to exist in three dimensions. In the static and rotationally symmetric case, however, a kind of electricmagnetic duality is restored . The Ehlers-type transformation appears in rather wide class of solutions. Assuming stationary and rotational symmetry, the Einstein–Maxwell system  or the Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton system  reduces to a $`\sigma `$-model action which is invariant under the twisting. This symmetry however locally results in coordinate transformations, so that one might not regard this as a hidden symmetry. The subject considered here is the generation of the electromagnetic field. We show that the Harrison-type transformation exists in the case of the three-dimensional Einstein–Maxwell system admitting a non-null and non-twisting Killing vector field. In this case, a part of the field equations are derived from a $`\sigma `$-model action which is invariant under some symmetry group, and then the little group which preserves all the field equations is the Heisenberg group. This group includes Harrison-like transformation which generates space-times with the Maxwell field from a locally flat space-time. We also study the symmetry in the three-dimensional Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton system admitting a non-null and non-twisting Killing vector field. We show that the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ symmetry similar to the S(uperfield)-duality  exists. For the special value of the dilaton coupling constant, this $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ group transformation may be identified with the Geroch transformation  of the four-dimensional stationary vacuum space-time via the Kałuza–Klein method.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we analyze the symmetry of the three-dimensional Einstein–Maxwell equations with a non-null and non-twisting Killing vector field, where we show that the symmetry group is the Heisenberg group. In Sec. III, we turn to the Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton equations with a non-null and non-twisting Killing vector field, and show that the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ symmetry exists. In Sec. IV, we consider the Kałuza–Klein dimensional reduction of the four-dimensional vacuum space-time, and identify the the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ symmetry of reduced system with the Geroch symmetry  of the original system. The Section V contains the conclusion and some relevant considerations.

## II Symmetry of the three-dimensional Einstein–Maxwell equations

We consider the three-dimensional Einstein–Maxwell theory in the static case. Let $`(M^3,g)`$ be a three-dimensional static space-time. The metric can be written in the form

$$g=e^{2\mathrm{\Omega }(x,y)}[dt^2+e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}(dx^2+dy^2)].$$
(1)
The Ricci tensor becomes

$`\mathrm{Ric}=e^{2(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Omega })}(^2\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega })g(^2\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega })\delta `$ (2)
$`()\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (3)
where $`\delta =dx^2+dy^2`$ is the standard metric of the two-dimensional Euclidean space $`E^2`$, and the dot and $`=(_x,_y)`$ denote the inner product and the (vector) differential operator naturally defined on $`E^2`$, respectively.

Next, we consider the Maxwell equations. The divergence equation $`dF=0`$ implies that there locally exists a dual potential $`Y`$ such that

$$F=dY,$$
(4)
where “$``$” denotes the Hodge operator. As is well known, the source-free Maxwell field is equivalent to the minimally coupled massless scalar field in three dimensions, if the dual potential $`Y`$ is identified with the scalar field.

We assume that the dual potential $`Y`$ is time-independent: $`_tY=0`$. Then, the Bianchi identity for the Maxwell field $`dF=0`$ becomes an elliptic equation on $`E^2`$

$$^2Y+Y\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$
(5)
The Einstein equation $`\mathrm{Ric}=2dYdY`$ can be written in two-dimensional forms as

$$^2\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }=0,$$
(6)
and

$`(`$ $`^2\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega })\delta =()\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (8)
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega }2YY.`$
The trace part of the tensor equation (8) becomes.

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }YY.$$
(9)
One can easily check that a part of the Einstein–Maxwell equations \[Eqs. (5), (6) and (9)\] are derived from the variation of the energy integral given by

$$I=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x𝑑ye^\mathrm{\Omega }[(\mathrm{\Omega })^2+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }(Y)^2].$$
(10)
This describes a nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model with the base space $`(E^2,\delta )`$ and the target space $`(T,G)`$, where the target space metric is

$$G=e^\mathrm{\Omega }(d\mathrm{\Omega }^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }d\mathrm{\Psi }dY^2).$$
(11)
In other words, a solution of the Einstein–Maxwell equations $`\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi },Y\}`$ must be a harmonic mapping: $`E^2T`$, and the solution space is further constrained by the trace-free part of Eq. (8):

$`[(\mathrm{\Omega })^2+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }(Y)^2]\delta =()\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (12)
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega }2YY.`$ (13)
On the other hand, a Killing vector $`\xi `$ of $`(T,G)`$: $`_\xi G=0`$ generates a one-parameter group of transformation of the harmonic mappings*** More precisely, the transformation generated by a conformal Killing vector (with a constant conformal factor) of $`(T,G)`$ leaves the $`\sigma `$–model action (10) invariant up to a constant factor. . This means that given a solution $`\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi },Y\}`$ of the Einstein–Maxwell equations, we can obtain another harmonic mapping $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{},Y^{}\}`$, though the latter should satisfy Eq. (13) to be a solution of the Einstein–Maxwell equations. Let us consider this transformation group that preserves the Einstein–Maxwell equations. It is convenient to introduce variables $`U=e^\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ and $`V=\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then the target space metric is simplified as

$$G=2dUdV2UdY^2.$$
(14)
The Killing vectors are

$`\xi _1=U_UV_V\frac{1}{2}Y_Y,`$ (15)
$`\xi _2=Y_V+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(2U)_Y,`$ (16)
$`\xi _3=_V,`$ (17)
$`\xi _4=_Y,`$ (18)
These give infinitesimal transformations of harmonic mappings. To obtain finite transformations, we exponentiate these infinitesimal generators $`\xi `$. Taking into account Eq. (13), we find that the transformation group of the Einstein–Maxwell equations are given by

$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{},Y^{}\}=\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi },ϵY\},`$ (19)
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{},Y^{}\}=\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }+\beta Y+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega },Y+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }\},`$ (20)
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{},Y^{}\}=\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }+\gamma ,Y+\delta \},`$ (21)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, and $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are real numbers. The parameter $`ϵ`$ just exchanges the sign of the Maxwell field. The parameter $`\beta `$ gives a non-trivial transformation. In particular, $`\beta `$ generates non-vanishing Maxwell field starting with a locally flat space-time. The parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ result in gauge transformations. The continuous transformations generated by parameters $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ form the Heisenberg group (see Appendix A).

The above argument also holds when there is a hypersurface-orthogonal spacelike Killing vector instead of a static Killing vector. Then, the metric can be written as

$$g=e^{2\mathrm{\Omega }(t,r)}[e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }(t,r)}(dt^2+dr^2)+d\phi ^2],$$
(22)
and the transformations (19), (20) and (21) hold without modifications.

As a simple example, we show a transformation of a flat space into Einstein–Maxwell fields. The usual Minkowski metric does not generate a non-trivial solution, however, there is another static form of the flat space-time

$$g=[\mathrm{ln}(r/r_0)]^2dt^2+\left(r_1/r\right)^2(dr^2+r^2d\phi ^2),$$
(23)
where $`r_0`$ and $`r_1`$ are constants, and the null hypersurface $`\{r=r_0\}`$ is the Rindler horizon. The equation (20) transforms this metric into

$$g=[\mathrm{ln}(r/r_0)]^2dt^2+(r_1/r)^2[\mathrm{ln}(r/r_0)]^{\beta ^2/2}(dr^2+r^2d\phi ^2),$$
(24)
and generates the dual potential

$$Y=\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{r}{r_0}\right).$$
(25)
Then, the Maxwell field becomes

$$F=\frac{\beta }{2}dtd\phi ,$$
(26)
which describes the electric field along $`\phi `$–axis.

## III Symmetry of the Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton equations

The method given in the previous section can be applied even when the dilaton is included. The action of the Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton system in the Einstein frame is given by

$$S=\left[R4(\mathrm{\Phi })^2e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}F^2\right],$$
(27)
where $`\alpha `$ is the dilaton coupling constant. From the Maxwell equation $`de^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}F=0`$, there exists a dual potential such that

$$F=e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}dY.$$
(28)
Then, the remaining field equations are the Bianchi identity for the Maxwell field

$$ddY=4\alpha g^1(d\mathrm{\Phi },dY),$$
(29)
the equation of motion of the dilaton,

$$dd\mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}g^1(dY,dY),$$
(30)
and the Einstein equation

$$\mathrm{Ric}=4d\mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Phi }+2e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}dYdY.$$
(31)
We again consider the static metric (1), and assume the time-independent field variables: $`_tY=_t\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. Then, the field equations become the scalar equations

$`^2Y+\mathrm{\Omega }Y=4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }Y,`$ (32)
$`^2\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}YY,`$ (33)
$`^2\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }=0,`$ (34)
and the tensor equation

$`(`$ $`^2\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega })\delta `$ (37)
$`=()\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }4\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega }2e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}YY,`$
on $`E^2`$. The trace part of the tensor equation (37) is

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }2\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}YY.$$
(38)
The equations (32), (33), (34) and (38) are derived from the variation of the energy integral

$`I=\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y}`$ (39)
$`\times e^\mathrm{\Omega }\left[(\mathrm{\Omega })^2+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }2(\mathrm{\Phi })^2e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}(Y)^2\right].`$ (40)
This describes the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model with the target space metric

$$G=e^\mathrm{\Omega }\left[d\mathrm{\Omega }^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }d\mathrm{\Psi }2d\mathrm{\Phi }^2e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}dY^2\right].$$
(41)
Introducing new variables

$$U=e^\mathrm{\Omega }/2,V=\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Psi },X=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\alpha }e^{2\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(42)
the target space metric becomes

$$G=2dUdV\left(\frac{U}{\alpha ^2}\right)\frac{dX^2+dY^2}{X^2}.$$
(43)
The Killing vectors are

$`\xi _1`$ $`=`$ $`2XY_X(X^2Y^2)_Y,`$ (44)
$`\xi _2`$ $`=`$ $`X_X+Y_Y,`$ (45)
$`\xi _3`$ $`=`$ $`_Y,`$ (46)
$`\xi _4`$ $`=`$ $`_V,`$ (47)
where $`\xi _A`$ $`(A=1,2,3)`$ correspond to the Killing vectors of the Poincaré metric. The finite transformations preserving the trace-free part of Eq. (37) consist of

$`Y^{}=ϵY,(ϵ=\pm 1)`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }+\gamma ,(\gamma 𝐑)`$ (49)
and the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ transformation

$$\lambda ^{}=i\frac{a\lambda +ib}{c\lambda +id},(a,b,c,d𝐑,adbc=1)$$
(50)
where $`\lambda =X+iY`$. This $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ transformation resembles the S-duality, and turns out to be the symmetry of the action (27) without the assumption of staticity.

## IV The $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ invariance from the KaŁuza-Klein mechanism

Here we show that the origin of the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ invariance of the Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton system can be identified with the Geroch symmetry of the vacuum Einstein equation for the special value of the dilaton coupling constant.

Let ($`M^4,\widehat{g}`$) be a four-dimensional Ricci flat space-time admitting a space-like Killing vector $`\zeta `$. The metric can be decomposed into

$$\widehat{g}=e^{2\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}g+e^{2\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}(dz+2^{1/2}A)^2,$$
(51)
where the Killing vector is $`\zeta =_z`$, and the metric $`g`$ and the one-form $`A`$ are regarded as tensor fields on the three-dimensional manifold $`M^3`$. The three-dimensional effective theory is described by the action

$$S=\left[R2\alpha ^2(\mathrm{\Phi })^2e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}F^2\right],$$
(52)
where $`F=dA`$. The action coincides with Eq. (27) when $`\alpha =2^{1/2}`$.

Let us consider the Einstein equation on $`M^4`$ for a moment. The basic variables are the amplitude

$$X=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}(\zeta ,\zeta )=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(53)
and the twist

$$\omega =(\zeta d\zeta )=2^{1/2}e^{4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}F,$$
(54)
of the Killing vector, where “$``$” denotes the Hodge operator on $`M^4`$. From the Ricci-flatness of $`M^4`$, the twist is closed:

$$d\omega =2[\zeta \widehat{\mathrm{Ric}}(\zeta )]=0,$$
(55)
so that there locally exists a twist potential $`Y`$:

$$dY=2^{1/2}\omega .$$
(56)
The complex potential is defined by

$$\lambda =X+iY.$$
(57)
In terms of this, the Ricci flat condition of $`M^4`$ can be written in the three-dimensional form as

$$dd\lambda =\frac{2g^1(d\lambda ,d\lambda )}{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}$$
(58)
and

$$\mathrm{Ric}=\frac{2d\lambda d\lambda ^{}}{(\lambda +\lambda ^{})^2},$$
(59)
where $`\mathrm{Ric}`$ is the Ricci tensor on ($`M^3,g`$).

The Eqs. (58) and (59) are equivalent to Eqs. (29), (30) and (31) when $`\alpha =2^{1/2}`$, and these are derived from the variation of the effective action:

$$S=\left[R\frac{2g^1(d\lambda ,d\lambda ^{})}{(\lambda +\lambda ^{})^2}\right]$$
(60)
The effective action (60) is invariant under the so-called Geroch transformation

$$\lambda ^{}=i\frac{a\lambda +ib}{c\lambda +id},(a,b,c,d𝐑,adbc=1),$$
(61)
which has the same form as Eq. (50). Thus, the $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ invariance of the Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton system can be identified with the Geroch transformation of the vacuum metric when $`\alpha =2^{1/2}`$.

## V Conclusion

We have discussed the hidden symmetry possessed by the three-dimensional gravity. It has been shown that the symmetry group of the Einstein–Maxwell equations with a non-null and non-twisting Killing vector field is the Heisenberg group, and this group includes the Harrison-type transformation. In the case of the Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton system admitting a non-null and non-twisting Killing vector field, the symmetry group is $`SL(2,𝐑)`$. For the special value of the dilaton coupling constant ($`\alpha =2^{1/2}`$), this symmetry may be identified with the Geroch symmetry of the four-dimensional vacuum space-time admitting a spacelike Killing vector field via the Kałuza–Klein mechanism.

The resulting transformations require only a single non-twisting Killing vector field. We can therefore apply these transformations to a wide class of the static vacuum solutions without rotational symmetry. For instance, we can obtain non-trivial solutions through the Harrison-type transformation to static multiparticle solutions . Moreover, applying the S-duality-like transformation, we can have a class of static multiparticle solutions with the non-trivial Maxwell and dilaton fields.

Our results rely on the $`\sigma `$-model structure of the system, however, the non-vanishing consmological term brakes the $`\sigma `$-model structure; namely, the method presented here is no longer valid in the presence of the cosmological constant. In particular, the solution generating method could not be applied to three-dimensional black holes, which require the negative cosmological term .

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Profs. H. Sato, A. Hosoya and K. Nakao for many useful suggestions and comments.n We also thank Dr. A. Ishibashi for stimulating discussions. Y.M. would like to thank Prof. Takashi Nakamura for continuing encouragement. D.I. was supported by JSPS Research and this research was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Fund (No. 4318).

## A Group structure of finite transformation of Einstein–Maxwell equations

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the connected component including the unit element of the symmetry group of Einstein–Maxwell equations. \[Namely, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the set of finite transformations except the Maxwell field inversion (19).\] Each element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is uniquely represented as

$$f_{\beta \delta \gamma }:=\mathrm{exp}(\beta \xi _2+\delta \xi _4\gamma \xi _3),\beta ,\delta ,\gamma 𝐑.$$
(A1)
Using the Campbell–Hausdorff formula, one can obtain the product formula

$$f_{\beta \delta \gamma }f_{\beta ^{}\delta ^{}\gamma ^{}}=f_{\beta +\beta ^{},\delta +\delta ^{},\gamma +\gamma ^{}+(\beta \delta ^{}\beta ^{}\delta )/2},$$
(A2)
and the identity:

$$f_{\beta \delta \gamma }=e^{\gamma \xi _3}e^{\delta \xi _4/2}e^{\beta \xi _2}e^{\delta \xi _4/2}=e^{\delta \xi _4/2}e^{\beta \xi _2}e^{\delta \xi _4/2}e^{\gamma \xi _3}.$$
(A3)
Consider a map $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Gamma }GL(3,𝐑)`$ such that

$$\varphi (f_{\beta \delta \gamma })=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \beta & \gamma +\beta \delta /2\\ 0& 1& \delta \\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(A4)
From Eq. (A2), it can easily be checked that $`\varphi `$ is one-to-one group homeomorphism. Since the image of $`\varphi `$ is upper triangular matrices whose diagonal elements are unity, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Heisenberg group so called. From the identity (A3) and the transformation laws (20) and (21), one can calculate the group action

$`f_{\beta \delta \gamma }(\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi },Y\})`$ (A5)
$`=\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi }+\beta Y+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \delta }{2}},Y+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }+\delta \}.`$ (A6)
Using Eq. (A6) again, one obtains

$`f_{\beta \delta \gamma }(f_{\beta ^{}\delta ^{}\gamma ^{}}(\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi },Y\}))`$ (A7)
$`=(f_{\beta ^{}\delta ^{}\gamma ^{}}f_{\beta ,\delta ,\gamma })(\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi },Y\}).`$ (A8)
Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the right transformation group on the solution space $`\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Psi },Y\}`$.


format: text

text:
# Response to tilted magnetic fields in 𝐵𝑖₂𝑆𝑟₂𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑢₂𝑂₈ with columnar defects : Evidence for transverse Meissner effect.

## Abstract

The transverse Meissner effect (TME) in the highly layered superconductor $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+y}`$ with columnar defects is investigated by transport measurements. We present detailed evidence for the persistence of the Bose-glass phase when $`H`$ is tilted at an angle $`\theta <\theta _c\left(T\right)`$ away from the column direction: (i) the variable-range vortex hopping process for low currents crosses over to the half-loops regime for high currents; (ii) in both regimes near $`\theta _c(T)`$ the energy barriers vanish linearly with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ ; (iii) the transition temperature is governed by $`T_{BG}(0)T_{BG}(\theta )|\mathrm{tan}\theta |^{1/\nu _{}}`$ with $`\nu _{}=1.0\pm 0.1`$. Furthermore, above the transition as $`\theta \theta _c^+`$, moving kink chains consistent with a commensurate-incommensurate transition scenario are observed. These results thereby clearly show the existence of the TME for $`\theta <\theta _c(T)`$ .

The mixed state in high-$`T_C`$ superconductors has been of considerable interest over the past ten years. The reason is that combined effects between temperature, elasticity, intervortex interactions, and disorder yield a large variety of new thermodynamic vortex phases . In particular, the theory of vortex pinning by correlated disorder such as twin planes or artificial columnar defects has been considered by Nelson and Vinokur (NV)  and Hwa et al . In the case of parallel columns, NV have shown that if the applied magnetic field H is aligned with the columnar defects, the low temperature physics is similar to that of the Bose glass (BG) , with the flux lines strongly localized in the tracks leading to zero resistivity. When H is tilted at an angle $`\theta `$ away from the column direction, the BG phase with perfect alignment of the internal flux density B parallel to the columns is predicted to be stable up to a critical transverse field $`H_c`$ producing the so-called transverse Meissner effect (TME) . For $`\theta >\theta _c\mathrm{arctan}(\mu _0H_c/B)`$, the linear resistivity is finite resulting from the appearance of kink chains along the transverse direction as discussed in Ref. . Finally, above a still larger angle, the kinked vortex structures disappear and B becomes collinear with H. Similar scenarios have also been developed for pinning of vortices by the twin boundaries  and by the layered structure of the coumpound itself .
Recently, the TME in untwinned single crystals of $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ (YBCO) with columnar defects, has been observed using an array of Hall sensors . Previous magnetization or magnetic-torque measurements in anisotropic three-dimensional superconductors, such as YBCO, gave support to the presence of vortex lock-in phenomena, due to pinning by the twin boundaries  or by the interlayers between the Cu-O planes . In the case of highly layered superconductors, such as $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+y}`$ (BSCCO), although the lock-in transition was observed for H tilted away from the layers , the existence of the TME due to the pinning by columnar defects remained an open question.
In this letter, we present measurements of the electrical properties near the glass-liquid transition in BSCCO single crystals with parallel columnar defects, as a function of $`T`$ and $`\theta `$ for filling factors $`f<1`$. We find that when $`\theta `$ is less than a critical angle $`\theta _c(T)`$, the resistivity $`\rho (J)`$ vanishes for low currents. A detailed quantitative analysis of $`\rho (J)`$ indicates that the creep proceeds via variable-range vortex hopping (VRH) at low currents due to some on-site disorder , crossing over to the half-loop regime at high currents. For $`\theta >\theta _c(T)`$, the very signature of a kinked vortex structure, consistent with a commensurate-incommensurate (CIC) transition scenario in (1+1) dimensions , is deduced from the measurement of the critical behavior of the linear resistivity. All these results clearly demonstrate that when the field is tilted at $`\theta <\theta _c`$ away from the defects, the flux lines remain localized on columnar defects, and hence, the BG exhibits a TME.
The BSSCO single crystal was grown by a self-flux technique, as described elsewhere . The crystal of $`1\times 1\times 0.030mm^3`$ size with the c-axis along the shortest dimension has a $`T_C`$ of $`89K`$, a transition width of $`1K`$, and was irradiated along its c-axis with $`5.8GeV`$ Pb ions to a dose corresponding to $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }=1.5T`$ at the Grand Accélérateur National d’Ions Lourds (Caen, France). The crystal was mounted onto a rotatable sample holder with an angular resolution better than $`0.1^{}`$ in a cryostat with a $`9T`$ magnet. Isothermal $`IV`$ curves were recorded using a $`dc`$ four-probe method with a sensitivity of $`10^{10}V`$ and a temperature stability better than $`5mK`$. H was aligned with the tracks using the well-known dip feature occurring in dissipation process for $`\theta =0^{}`$, and was tilted away from the column direction for $`f\mu _0H_{}/B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ fixed. We present in this paper the data obtained for $`f=1/3`$.
Fig. (1) shows a typical log-log plot of $`V/II`$ curves obtained varying $`\theta `$ for $`T<T_{BG}(0)`$ fixed. We observe a well-defined angular crossover at an angle $`\theta _c`$. For low angles $`(\theta <\theta _c)`$, $`V/II`$ data suggest a glassy vortex-like state resulting from the persistence of the BG phase previously observed in this crystal for $`\theta =0^{}`$ . On the contrary, upper curves $`(\theta >\theta _c)`$ display an Ohmic regime, and hence, indicate a liquid vortex-like state.
We first focus on the angular range $`(\theta <\theta _c)`$ where a divergent conductivity with vanishing current is observed, and we consider the scenario where the BG phase is stable. Thus, one expects that excitations of some localized vortex lines lead to a nonlinear resistivity given by :

$`\rho (J)=\rho _0exp\left(\stackrel{~}{E}_K(J_c/J)^\mu /k_BT\right)`$ (1)
where $`\rho _0`$ is a characteristic flux-flow resistivity and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_K(J_c/J)^\mu `$ represents the barriers against vortex motion. This expression is predicted to hold for various regimes of different behavior as the current density probes different length scales in the BG. Here, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_K`$ acts as a scaling parameter for the pinning energy and $`J_c`$ is the characteristic current scale of the creep process. When the current density is large enough that the growth of vortex-loops excitations of a line from its pinning track does not reach out the neighboring tracks, the half-loops excitations are relevant and lead to an exponent $`\mu =1`$ and $`J_cJ_1=U/(\mathrm{\Phi }_0d)`$, where $`U`$ is the mean pinning potential and $`d=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_0/B_\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. With decreasing current density, critical size of half-loops increases with the result that some disorder in the pinning potential becomes relevant. This situation yields the VRH process characterized by $`\mu =1/3`$ and by another important current scale $`J_cJ_0=1/(\mathrm{\Phi }_0g(\stackrel{~}{\mu })d^3)`$, where $`g(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ denotes the density of pinning energies at the chemical potential of the vortex system. One expects that both $`J_1`$ and $`J_0`$ are insensitive to $`H_{}`$. We therefore consider that the only important effect of $`H_{}`$ is to lower the scaling parameter for the pinning energy in Eq. (1), according to the formula :

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_K=E_Kϵ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0dH_{}`$ (2)
where $`E_k`$ is the mean kink energy, and the energy gain due to the tilt is obtained from the isotropic result $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0dH_{}`$ by applying the scaling rule Eq. (3.12) of the Ref. .
We now present the following two-step method of fitting Eqs. (1) and (2) to the data, which allows to get a good understanding of the physics in our experiment. First, we plot in Fig. 2 the natural logarithm of V/I versus $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ for $`I`$ fixed. Note that $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ happens to be here directly proportional to $`H_{}`$ since $`f`$ is maintained constant. A linear variation $`\mathrm{ln}(V/I)=A+B\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ (expression designated below as $`E1`$) with $`A`$ and $`B`$ being current-dependent parameters is found for $`\theta `$ varying up to $`\theta _c`$ (solid lines), whereas above $`\theta _c`$ data deviate from this behavior (dotted lines). This finding is another argument supporting a true angular transition at $`\theta _c`$, as suggested in Fig. 1. Here, it should be noted that we draw such a conclusion from the observation of two independent regimes of different behavior. One leads to a vanishing linear resistivity as $`\theta \theta _c^+`$, and the other is evidenced by probing the regions of nonlinear resistivity above and below $`\theta _c`$. Another result is that $`BI^\mu `$ with $`\mu `$ undergoing a jump from 1/3 to 1 at $`I_260mA`$. Such a current crossover is clearly visible in the insert of figure 2 where we plot together $`B`$ normalized by $`I_0^{1/3}`$ and $`B`$ normalized by $`I_1`$ versus I depending upon whether $`I`$ is $`<I_2`$ or $`>I_2`$, respectively. Here, $`I_0`$ and $`I_1`$ are two currents evaluated on the basis of the BG model, as will be seen below. It may be seen that below $`I_2`$, the solid line of slope $`1/3`$ fits the data very well, whereas the dashed line of slope $`1`$ fits them best above $`I_2`$. It therefrom follows that $`B_{1/3}(I)=\kappa (I_0/I)^{1/3}`$ and $`B_1(I)=\kappa I_1/I`$ where the labels $`1/3`$ and $`1`$ differentiate between two fits below and above $`I_2`$, respectively. In both these equations, $`\kappa 0.6`$ is a dimensionless constant. It should be noted that such a crossover at $`I_2`$ is clearly observed from $`V/II`$ curves as well (see Fig. 1), where a sudden increase of $`V/I`$ suggesting an increasing vortex motion, occurs at $`I_2`$. Second, we plot in Fig. 3 and its insert the natural logarithm of $`V/I`$ versus $`I^{1/3}`$ for $`I<I_2`$ and versus $`I^1`$ for $`I>I_2`$, respectively. We verify that the expression $`ln(V/I)=CD_\mu I^\mu `$ (expression designated below as $`E2`$) fits very well our experimental data (solid lines) with an exponent $`\mu =1/3`$ for $`I<I_2`$ and with $`\mu =1`$ for $`I>I_2`$. In $`E2`$, $`D_\mu `$ is labeled using the above convention. The result is that $`C`$ is a constant (within the experimental errors), while $`D_\mu `$ depends on $`\theta `$. In Fig. 4 and its lower insert, we show $`D_{1/3}`$ and $`D_1`$ versus $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$, respectively. A linear variation in $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ is observed consistently with expression $`E1`$. In upper insert of Fig. 4, we plot together $`D_{1/3}/I_0^{1/3}`$ and $`D_1/I_1`$ versus $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$. The result is that the data are superimposable onto a single straight line with slope $`0.6`$ consistent with the value of $`\kappa `$, as may be verified by identifying the expression $`E1`$ with the expression $`E2`$.
In conclusion, $`V/I=R_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\kappa ^{}\kappa \mathrm{tan}\theta \right)\left(I_0/I\right)^{1/3}\right]`$ is clearly observed in our experiment for $`I<I_2`$ (solid lines in Fig. 1) while $`V/I=R_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\kappa ^{}\kappa \mathrm{tan}\theta \right)\left(I_1/I\right)\right]`$ is valid for data above $`I_2`$ (dashed lines in Fig. 1). In both fitting expressions $`\kappa 0.6`$ and $`\kappa ^{}0.4`$ are two parameters that a priori depend on the temperature and filling factor, $`I_0=15`$ A and $`I_1=0.4`$ A are evaluated from BG model (see below), and $`R_0e^C1.1`$ $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is five orders of magnitude lower than the normal resistance. Therefore, for $`\theta <\theta _c`$ we have rather strong evidence of two separate (albeit related) vortex creep processes peculiar to a BG : the half-loop expansion with $`\mu =1`$ which is cut off by the crossover at $`I_2`$ into the VRH process with $`\mu =1/3`$. Moreover, we note that for each filling factor investigated in our experiment ($`f=0.13,1/3,2/3`$), we observe a continuation of the VRH process evidenced at $`\theta =0^{}`$ . We therefore argue that the BG phase remains stable up to a critical tilting angle $`\theta _c`$, as predicted by NV .
To test the accuracy of the above view, we estimate from the theory , first the characteristic current scales, secondly the current crossover, and then the energy barriers in Eq. (1). $`J_0`$ only depends on $`g(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$. Although a form of $`g(x)`$ is not yet available, an estimation of $`g(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ can be done in terms of $`\gamma `$, the bandwidth of pinning energies due to the disorder, and hence, $`g(\stackrel{~}{\mu })1/\left(d^2\gamma \right)`$. We take $`\gamma =t_d+\gamma _i`$ where $`\gamma _i`$ arise from some on-site disorder, and $`t_dU/\sqrt{E_k/k_BT}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{2}E_k/k_BT\right)`$ is due to structural disorder . Assuming the variation in the defect diameters as the first cause for random on-site energies, we approximate $`\gamma _i`$ to the width of the distribution of pinning energies $`\stackrel{~}{P}(U_K)=P(c_K)dc_K/dU_K`$ where the pinning energy and the defect radius $`c_K`$ are related to one another through the formula $`U_K=ϵ_0\mathrm{ln}(1+(c_K/\sqrt{2}\xi _{ab})^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`P(c_K)`$ designates a probability density function for the defect radii. In the following estimation of $`\gamma _i`$ , we use realistic Gaussian law centered at $`c_0=45`$ Å with a standard deviation of $`6`$ Å, as shown in figure 1 of Ref. . Then, taking $`E_K=d\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1U}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1ϵϵ_0\mathrm{ln}\left(a_0/\xi _{ab}\right)`$ where $`ϵ`$ is the anisotropic parameter and $`ϵ_0=\varphi _0^2/\left(4\pi \mu _0\lambda _{ab}^2\right)`$, and with $`U=U_0f(T/T^{})`$ where $`T^{}=max[c_0,\sqrt{2}\xi _{ab}]\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_1U_0}`$ is the energy scale for the pinning and $`f(x)=x^2/2\mathrm{exp}\left(2x^2\right)`$ accounts for thermal effects, and using appropriate parameters for BSCCO ($`\lambda _{ab}1850`$ Å, $`\xi _{ab}20`$ Åand $`ϵ1/200`$) we obtain $`J_0\gamma /(\varphi _0d)10^9A/m^2`$ and $`J_1U/(\varphi _0d)\mathrm{2.6.10}^7A/m^2`$. Assuming uniform currents into the sample we have $`I_015`$ A and $`I_10.4`$ A. The basis for the estimate of the current crossover $`J_2`$ between the VRH process and the half-loops regime corresponds to the strongly dispersive situation with $`U/\gamma =J_1/J_0I_1/I_0\mathrm{2.6.10}^21`$, so that $`I_2(U/\gamma )^{1/2}I_1(U/\gamma )^{3/2}I_0`$ with $`I_2<I_1<I_0`$ , and thus, we obtain $`I_26.10^2A`$ in excellent agreement with the experiment (see Fig. 1). Below and above this current crossover, the energy barriers against vortex motion are $`\stackrel{~}{E}_k(I_0/I)^{1/3}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_k(I_1/I)`$, respectively, where $`\stackrel{~}{E}_k`$ is given by Eq. (2). Using again the above usual parameters of BSCCO, we estimate $`E_k/k_BT0.5`$ and $`ϵ^2\varphi _0dH_{}/k_BT0.7\mathrm{tan}\theta `$, which correspond to the values of our fitting parameters $`\kappa ^{}`$ and $`\kappa `$ (see upper insert in Fig. 4). Thus, the experiment is also in good agreement with the energy barriers theoretically predicted below and above $`I_2`$.
Finally, we pass on to the linear regime observed above $`\theta _c`$ (see Fig. 1). For $`\theta >\theta _c`$, Hwa et al.  predict on the basis of the CIC transition, the appearance of free moving chains of kinks oriented in the $`H_{}`$ direction leading to a critical behavior of the linear resistivity $`\rho (\mathrm{tan}\theta \mathrm{tan}\theta _c)^\nu `$ characterized by an exponent $`\nu =1/2`$ (or $`\nu =3/2`$) in (1+1) \[or (2+1)\] dimensions. This type of behavior with $`\nu =1/2`$ is evident in Fig. 5 which shows a plot of $`R/R_C`$ versus $`\mathrm{tan}\theta \mathrm{tan}\theta _c`$ for three temperatures less than $`T_{BG}(0)`$. Here, $`R_C`$ is a scaling parameter comparable to $`R_0`$, and the critical tilt angle $`\theta _c(T)`$ has been determined fitting $`R=R_C(\mathrm{tan}\theta \mathrm{tan}\theta _c)^{1/2}`$ to the data. In Fig. 2, the arrow indicates $`\theta _c`$ obtained from this fit. The insert of the figure 5 shows $`T_{BG}(0)T_{BG}(\theta )/T_{BG}(0)`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ where $`T_{BG}(\theta )`$ is obtained through the inversion of $`\theta _c`$ and $`T`$. The solid line shown in insert is a fit to the data following $`T_{BG}(0)T_{BG}(\theta )|\mathrm{tan}\theta |^{1/\nu _{}}`$ with $`\nu _{}=1.0\pm 0.1`$, as recently suggested by Lidmar and Wallin from numerical simulations  and observed in $`(K,Ba)BiO_3`$ . Note that such a value of $`\nu _{}`$ is excellently consistent with the result previously found using the scaling theory of the BG transition at $`\theta =0^{}`$  .
In summary, we have shown via a detailed quantitative analysis of the transport properties in BSSCO single crystal with columnar defects that a TME is supported by the experimental evidence of the creep processes (VRH and half-loop) showing the stability of the BG phase when $`𝐇`$ is tilted away from the column direction. Above the critical angle, the commensurate-incommensurate transition have been evidenced. Finally, our results indicate that the vortices behave as well-connected lines in accordance with the idea that columnar defects effectively increase interlayer coupling in highly layered superconductors .


text:
# Shot noise for resonant Cooper pair tunneling

## Abstract

We study intrinsic noise of current in a superconducting single-electron transistor, taking into account both coherence effects and Coulomb interaction near a Cooper-pair resonance. Due to this interplay, the statistics of tunneling events deviates from the Poisson distribution and, more important, it shows even-odd asymmetry in the transmitted charge. The zero-frequency noise is suppressed significantly when the quasiparticle tunneling rates are comparable to the coherent oscillation frequency of Cooper pairs.

Electron tunneling events across a small tunnel junction are correlated because of the large charging energy. These correlations lead to variety of phenomena which fall under the rubric of Coulomb blockade effects . As an important example, the single-electron transistor (SET) has attracted much interest due to its ultimate sensitivity to electric charges . If the junctions are superconducting, an additional effect, the coherent tunneling of Cooper pairs, comes to play and leads to much richer current-voltage characteristics .

Further understanding of the properties of electron transport (related, e.g., to coherence, electron-electron interaction and carrier statistics) comes from study of current fluctuations . In single-electron devices, the roles of Coulomb blockade on noise have been discussed by many authors . Moreover the importance of coherence, leading to an enhancement of shot noise in superconducting quantum point contacts, was pointed out in Ref. . Up to our knowledge, however, the combined effect of coherence and Coulomb blockade in superconducting double tunnel junction systems has not been addressed. Additional interest in studying noise in single-electron devices comes from their use in quantum measurements  and as entanglement detectors in solid state systems .

In this Letter, we discuss the statistics of tunneling events and the shot noise in superconducting SET near a resonance for Cooper pair tunneling. The interplay between coherence and interaction, explored by sweeping the device through the resonance, leads to a number of interesting results. i) At a Cooper pair resonance the statistics of tunneling events is non-Poissonian and it shows an even-odd asymmetry. ii) The shot noise suppression depends strongly on the ratio between the Josephson coupling and the quasi-particle tunneling rate (the effect is more pronounced close to the resonance). iii) The frequency-dependent noise has a resonance peak at a frequency corresponding to the coherent oscillation of Cooper pairs.

The superconducting SET \[see Fig. 1 (a)\] is a system of two small tunnel junctions in series with a small central electrode. The device operates in the regime in which the charging energy $`E_C=e^2/2C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ($`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the total capacitance of the island) is much larger than the Josephson coupling energy $`E_J`$ as well as the thermal energy $`k_BT`$. The largest energy scale is the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (assumed equal in both the electrodes and the island). By adjusting the bias and gate voltages, $`V`$ and $`V_g`$, one can put either the right or left junction at resonance for Cooper-pair tunneling . We consider the case of resonance across the left junction.

The effective Hamiltonian is given by $`H=H_0+H_{qp}+H_T`$ with

$$H_0=E_C(n+n_0)^2eVn_RE_J\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L.$$
(1)
Here $`nn_L+n_R`$ is the number of excess electrons on the central island, $`n_L`$ ($`n_R`$) is the number of electrons that have passed across the left (right) junction *into* the central electrode, $`en_0C_RV+C_gV_g`$ is the offset charge on the central island, and $`2\varphi _L`$ is the superconducting phase difference at the left junction. $`n_j`$ and $`\varphi _j`$ are canonically conjugated $`[\varphi _j,n_k]=i\delta _{jk}`$. The terms $`H_{pq}`$ and $`H_T`$ describe the quasiparticles on the electrodes and their tunneling across the junctions, respectively . They are given by

$$H_{qp}=\underset{\alpha =L,R,D}{}\underset{k\sigma }{}\epsilon _{k\alpha }\gamma _{k\alpha \sigma }^{}\gamma _{k\alpha \sigma },$$
(2)
$$H_T=\underset{j=L,R}{}\underset{kq\sigma }{}[T_{kq}e^{i\varphi _j}\gamma _{kj\sigma }^{}\gamma _{qD\sigma }+h.c.]$$
(3)
where $`\gamma _{k\alpha }^{}`$ ($`\gamma _{k\alpha }`$) creates (annihilates) a quasiparticle with momentum $`k`$ and energy $`\epsilon _{k\alpha }=\sqrt{\xi _{k\alpha }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ in electrode $`\alpha `$, $`\xi _k`$ is the single-particle dispersion, and $`T_{kq}`$ is the tunneling amplitude. Each event of quasiparticle tunneling *into* (*out of*) the island across the junctions leads to the transition $`nn+1`$ ($`nn1`$). The rate is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L/R}^\pm (n)=\left[\mathrm{coth}(\beta _{n,\pm }^{L/R})\pm 1\right]\frac{\mathrm{Im}I_{qp}(_{n,\pm }^{L/R})}{2e},$$
(4)
where $`_{n,\pm }^L=\pm E_{n,n\pm 1}`$, $`_{n,\pm }^R=eV\pm E_{n,n\pm 1}`$, $`E_{m,n}=E_C(mn)(m+n+2n_0)`$, and $`I_{qp}`$ is related to the quasiparticle tunneling current .

We will focus on the bias regime $`|eV|2\mathrm{\Delta }+E_C`$ ($`E_J,k_BT`$) where two charge states, for example $`n=0`$ and $`n=2`$, are nearly degenerate. Then due to the strong Coulomb blockade, it suffices to keep the three charge states, $`n=0,1,2`$, and two tunneling rates, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{}(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{}(2)`$; the other tunneling rates are negligible. To simplify the notation, we will assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is a very good approximation in the regime we are interested in. Effectively, one can imagine that across the left junction only coherent Cooper-pair tunneling occurs, interrupted from time to time by quasiparticle tunneling across the right junction, see Fig. 1 (b). In the experiment of Ref. , $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=8\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}`$ and $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=6\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}`$ for $`E_C=2.3E_J=117\mu \mathrm{eV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=230\mu \mathrm{eV}`$.

We need to keep track of the variable $`n_R`$ (or alternatively $`n_L`$) as well as $`n`$ ($`n_L=nn_R`$). Choosing the basis of $`\{|n,n_R\}`$, it can be shown that only diagonal elements (with respect to $`n_R`$) of the reduced density matrix are involved $`\rho _{mn}(n_R;t)=m,n_R\left|\rho (t)\right|n,n_R.`$ The generalized master equation  can be written in the Lindblad form ($`\mathrm{}=1`$):

$$_t\rho (n_R)=i[H_0,\rho (n_R)]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1,2}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\left[2L_n\rho (n_R+1)L_n^{}L_n^{}L_n\rho (n_R)\rho (n_R)L_n^{}L_n\right]$$
(5)
where $`L_n`$ is a Lindblad operator corresponding to the quantum jump $`nn1`$, $`L_n=|n1n|`$. The first term describes a purely phase-coherent dynamics, while the second is responsible for the dephasing and relaxation due to the quasiparticle tunneling.

*Counting Statistics*. We first investigate the statistical distribution of the number of electrons that have tunneled across the right junction. It has been obtained , first by defining the characteristic matrix $`G(\theta ,\tau )=_{n_R}e^{i\theta n_R}\rho (n_R,\tau +t)`$, which satisfies a master equation similar to Eq. (5) with the initial condition $`G(\theta ,0)=_{n_R}\rho (n_R,t\mathrm{})`$. The probability $`P(N,\tau )`$ that $`N`$ electrons have tunneled during the period $`\tau `$ in the stationary state is then given by

$$P(N,\tau )=_\pi ^\pi \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }e^{+i\theta N}\mathrm{Tr}G(\theta ,\tau ).$$
(6)
When the dephasing is strong (either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$ or $`\epsilon E_C[(2+n_0)^2n_0^2]E_J`$), one can show that ($`N<0`$)

$$P(2N,\tau )=\frac{1}{|N|!}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\tau }{2}\right)^{|N|}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\tau }{2}\right)$$
(8)
$$P(2N1,\tau )=0$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r2E_J^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/(4\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$ is the relaxation rate for the charge state population in the strong dephasing limit. The distribution is Poissonian. However, there is a strong even-odd asymmetry. Physically, the charge is transferred in pairs (i.e. in units of $`2e`$) rather than one by one.

In the weak dephasing limit ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$) at resonance ($`\epsilon =0`$), we find

$$P(2N,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau }{4}\right)\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{}{\tau }\right)F_{|N|}(\tau ),$$
(11)
$$P(2N1,\tau )=\frac{8}{3}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau }{4}\right)F_{|N|}(\tau ),$$
(12)
where

$$F_n(\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{|z|=1}\frac{dz}{z^{n+1}}\frac{1}{\lambda (z)}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau \lambda (z)}{4}$$
(13)
with $`\lambda (z)=\sqrt{1+8z}`$. This distribution shows a much weaker, but still finite, even-odd asymmetry than the previous case \[see Eq. (Shot noise for resonant Cooper pair tunneling)\]. In the long-time limit ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau \mathrm{}`$), $`P(2N,\tau )=\frac{5}{9}P_G(N,\tau )`$ and $`P(2N1,\tau )=\frac{4}{9}P_G(N,\tau )`$ where $`P_G(N,\tau )`$ is a Gaussian distribution with $`N=I\tau /2e`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2=20\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau /27.`$

In the intermediate case ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$), an analytic expression for $`P(N,\tau )`$ is not available. The numerical results are shown in Fig. 2. The distribution function deviates significantly from a Poissonian distribution function. Coherent oscillations of the Cooper pairs manifest themselves in the even-odd asymmetry of the transmitted charges: $`P(N,\tau )`$ is suppressed (enhanced) for odd (even) $`N`$ compared with the Poissonian distribution.

*Shot Noise*. The shot noise spectrum is defined as

$$S(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega \tau }\{\delta I(t+\tau ),\delta I(t)\},$$
(14)
where $`\delta I(t)=I(t)I(t)`$ and $`\{A,B\}=AB+BA`$. The total current $`I(t)`$ through the system is related to the *tunneling* currents $`I_{L/R}=e_tn_{L/R}`$ across the junctions by

$$I(t)=\frac{C_R}{C_\mathrm{\Sigma }}I_L(t)\frac{C_L}{C_\mathrm{\Sigma }}I_R(t).$$
(15)
It is convenient to define the spectral densities of tunneling currents $`S_{ij}(\omega )`$ ($`i,j=L,R`$) in an analogous way as in Eq.(14) and rewrite the noise power density in the form

$$S(\omega )=\frac{C_R^2}{C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}S_{LL}(\omega )+\frac{C_L^2}{C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}S_{RR}(\omega )\frac{C_LC_R}{C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}\left[S_{LR}(\omega )+S_{RL}(\omega )\right].$$
(16)
In the stationary state $`I=I_L=I_R`$, so that $`S(\omega )=S_{LL}(\omega )=S_{RR}(\omega )`$ in the zero-frequency limit. In the opposite limit ($`\omega \mathrm{}`$), $`S(\omega )=(C_L^2/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)S_{RR}(\omega )=(C_L^2/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}eI`$ . \[In our case, the left junction is (nearly) at resonance for the Cooper pair tunneling and hence $`lim_\omega \mathrm{}S_{LL}(\omega )=0`$; see also the remarks below Eq. (4).\]

In order to calculate the two-time correlators in Eq. (14), we follow the procedures based on the quantum regression theorem  starting from the master equation (5). An explicit (but lengthy) expression for $`S(\omega )`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$ and $`\epsilon `$ can be given at an arbitrary finite frequency . Here we discuss the zero-frequency shot noise.

At $`\omega =0`$, the noise power density takes a simple form

$$\frac{S(0)}{2eI}=2\frac{8(E_J^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)E_J^2}{(3E_J^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+4\epsilon ^2)^2}.$$
(17)
In the strong dephasing limit ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$), the zero-frequency shot noise in Eq. (17) is enhanced approximately by a factor $`2`$ compared with its classical value, $`2eI`$. This can be understood in terms of Josephson quasi-particle (JQP) cycle . Because of the fast quasiparticle tunneling across the right junction, each Cooper pair that has tunneled into the central island breaks up immediately into quasiparticles, and quickly tunnels out. The charge is therefore transfered in units of $`2e`$ (compared with $`e`$ in classical charge transfer) for each JQP cycle \[see also Eq. (Shot noise for resonant Cooper pair tunneling)\].

In the weak ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$) and moderate ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$) dephasing limits the semiclassical JQP picture breaks down. In the extreme case ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$), the quasipaticles do not see the left junction and consequently the system can be viewed (approximately) as a single-junction system. Still, the noise deviates slightly from the Poisson value since the channels for tunneling (i.e., $`n=10`$ and $`n=21`$ with corresponding rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$) are correlated because of the Cooper pair oscillations and Coulomb blockade. The effect is related to the residual even-odd asymmetry of the distribution function in Eq. (Shot noise for resonant Cooper pair tunneling).

With moderate dephasing ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$), quasiparticle tunneling events across the right junction are strongly affected by the *coherent* oscillation of Cooper pairs across the left junction. Indeed, this effect gives rise to the significant deviation from the Poissonian distribution of the tunneling statistics. More remarkably, it also leads to the suppression of the shot noise which is maximum (by factor $`2/5`$) at resonance ($`\epsilon =0`$) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{2}E_J`$, see Fig. 3. This is reminiscent of the shot noise suppression in (non-superconducting) double-junction systems, whose maximal suppression is by factor $`1/2`$ for the symmetric junctions. We emphasize, however, that in the latter case, the coherence was not essential. In our case, the role of coherence is evident noticing that the dip in Fano factor \[i.e., $`S(0)/2eI`$\] disappears when moving away from the resonant condition as shown in Fig. 3.

In Fig. 4 we show the typical behavior of the finite-frequency noise spectrum in the (a) strong and (b) weak dephasing limits. It is interesting to notice that (only) in the weak dephasing limit, there is a resonance peak at $`\omega =E_J`$. Near the maximum and for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_J`$, the noise behaves like

$$\frac{S(\omega )}{2eI}\frac{C_R^2}{2C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}\frac{E_J^2}{(\omega E_J)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}.$$
(18)
The peak is an effect of coherent quantum transitions between the two energy levels tunnel split by $`E_J`$.

The JQP process discussed in this Letter was used in a recent experiment  to probe the coherent evolution of quantum states in a Cooper pair box. Weak continuous measurement using quantum point contact  and strong measurement using single-electron transistor  have been proposed. Whereas both schemes are non-invasive measurements, the setup discussed here probes the charge states on the island directly and invasively. In the weak dephasing limit, the resonance peaks in Eq. (18) and in Ref.  have a similar physical origin, and yet the latter has a peculiar upper bound. In the strong dephasing limit, the broad peak around zero frequency \[Fig. 4 (a)\] does not fit to the single Lorentzian shape of Ref. , which is a manifestation of the random telegraph noise; nevertheless, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$ and $`1/\tau _{\mathrm{mix}}`$ in Ref.  give the same time scale describing the relaxation of population density of the charge states on the island.

In conclusion, we have investigated the combined effects of coherence and interaction on the statistics of tunneling events and the shot noise in a superconducting SET. It has been shown that the number distribution of tunneled electrons deviates from the classical Poisson distribution and that zero-frequency shot noise is suppressed significantly due the coherent oscillation of Cooper pairs in the presence of Coulomb blockade.

We express special thanks to E. Sukhorukov for many invaluable discussions. We also acknowledge useful discussions with Y. Blanter, C. Bruder, G. Falci, Y. Makhlin, A. Maassen van den Brink, G. Schön, and J. Siewert.