text:
# Manifestations of anomalous glue: light-mass exotic mesons and 𝑔_{𝜂'𝑁𝑁}

## 1 Introduction

Searching for evidence of gluonic degrees of freedom in low-energy QCD is one of the main themes driving present experimental and theoretical studies of the strong interaction. Key probes include glueball and $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ exotic meson searches plus OZI violation in $`\eta ^{}`$ physics uppsala  which is sensitive to gluonic degrees of freedom through the U(1) axial anomaly zuoz . Exotic mesons are particularly interesting because the quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ are inconsistent with a simple quark-antiquark bound state dzierba . Two such exotics, with masses 1400 and 1600 MeV, have been observed in experiments at BNL exoticb  and CERN exoticc  in decays to $`\eta ^{}\pi `$ and $`\eta \pi `$. These exotics have been a puzzle to theorists and experimentalists alike because the lightest mass $`q\overline{q}g`$ state with exotic quantum numbers predicted by lattice calculations lattice ; thomas  and QCD inspired models models  has mass about 1800-1900 MeV. As we explain here, the presently observed light-mass exotics seen at BNL and CERN may have a simple explanation bassem  as dynamically generated resonances in $`\eta ^{}\pi `$ rescattering (in the final state interaction). The anomalous glue which generates the large $`\eta ^{}`$ mass plays an essential role in this dynamics.

The physics of anomalous glue also yields interesting phenomenology in the $`\eta ^{}`$-nucleon system. The flavour-singlet Goldberger-Treiman relation venez  relates the flavour-singlet axial-charge $`g_A^{(0)}`$ extracted from polarized deep inelastic scattering bass99  to the $`\eta ^{}`$-nucleon coupling constant. The small value of $`g_A^{(0)}`$ (about 50% of the OZI value 0.6) measured in polarized DIS and the large mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ point to large violations of OZI in the flavour-singlet $`J^{PC}=1^{++}`$ channel. OZI violating processes may also play an important role sb99  in $`\eta ^{}`$ production in proton-nucleon collisions close to threshold goran . This process is presently under investigation at COSY cosy .

We first review the puzzle of light-mass exotics. We then explain how the presently observed states may be understood as dynamically generated resonances in $`\eta ^{}\pi `$ rescattering. Here we briefly review the $`U_A`$(1)-extended effective Lagrangian for low-energy QCD vecca ; veccb . This Lagrangian is constructed so that it successfully includes the effects of the strong U(1) axial anomaly and the large $`\eta ^{}`$ mass. Finally, we discuss $`\eta ^{}`$ production in proton-nucleon collisions close to threshold where new effects sb99  of OZI violation are suggested by coupling this Lagrangian to the nucleon.

## 2 Light-mass exotics

The $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ light-mass exotics discovered at BNL exoticb  and CERN exoticc  were observed in decays to $`\eta \pi `$ and $`\eta ^{}\pi `$. Two such exotics, denoted $`\pi _1`$, have been observed through $`\pi ^{}p\pi _1p`$ at BNL exoticb : with masses 1400 MeV (in decays to $`\eta \pi `$) and 1600 MeV (in decays to $`\eta ^{}\pi `$ and $`\rho \pi `$). The $`\pi _1(1400)`$ state has also been observed in $`\overline{p}N`$ processes by the Crystal Barrel Collaboration at CERN exoticc . While the exotic quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ are inconsistent with a quark-antiquark bound state, they can be generated through a “valence” gluonic component – for example through coupling to the operator $`[\overline{q}\gamma _\mu qG^{\mu \nu }`$ \]. However, the observed exotics are considerably lighter than the predictions (about 1800-1900 MeV) of quenched lattice QCD lattice ; thomas  and QCD inspired models models  for the lowest mass $`q\overline{q}g`$ state with $`J^{PC}=1^+`$. These results suggest that, perhaps, the “exotic” states observed by the experimentalists might involve significant meson-meson bound state contributions. Furthermore, the decays of the light mass exotics to $`\eta `$ or $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons plus a pion suggest a possible connection to axial U(1) dynamics.

This idea has recently been investigated bassem  in a model of final state interaction in $`\eta \pi `$ and $`\eta ^{}\pi `$ rescattering using the $`U_A`$(1)-extended chiral Lagrangian vecca ; veccb , coupled channels and the Bethe-Salpeter equation, following the approach of the Valencia group valencia .

The $`U_A(1)`$-extended low-energy effective Lagrangian used in these calculations is:

$`_\mathrm{m}={\displaystyle \frac{F_\pi ^2}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}(^\mu U_\mu U^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{F_\pi ^2}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\chi _0(U+U^{})\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iQ\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{log}U\mathrm{log}U^{}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^2F_0^2}}Q^2`$
$`+\lambda Q^2\mathrm{Tr}_\mu U^\mu U^{}`$ (1)
Here $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\varphi }{F_\pi }+i\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\eta _0}{F_0})`$ is the unitary meson matrix where $`\varphi =_k\varphi _k\lambda _k`$ with $`\varphi _k`$ denotes the octet of would-be Goldstone bosons $`(\pi ,K,\eta _8)`$ associated with spontaneous chiral $`SU(3)_LSU(3)_R`$ breaking, and $`\eta _0`$ is the singlet boson; $`Q`$ denotes the topological charge density ($`Q=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }G\stackrel{~}{G}`$). Also, $`\chi _0=\mathrm{diag}[m_\pi ^2,m_\pi ^2,(2m_K^2m_\pi ^2)]`$ is the quark-mass induced meson mass matrix, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}`$ is the gluonic induced mass term for the singlet boson and $`\lambda `$ is an OZI violating coupling – see below. The pion decay constant $`F_\pi =92.4`$MeV and $`F_0`$ renormalises the flavour-singlet decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{singlet}}=F_\pi ^2/F_0100`$MeV.

The gluonic potential involving $`Q`$ is constructed so that the effective theory reproduces the QCD axial anomaly zuoz  in the divergence of the gauge invariantly renormalized axial-vector current. This potential also generates the gluonic contribution to the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses: $`Q`$ is treated as a background field with no kinetic term; it may be eliminated through its equation of motion to yield

$$\frac{1}{2}iQ\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{log}U\mathrm{log}U^{}\right]+\frac{3}{\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^2F_0^2}Q^2\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^2\eta _0^2$$
(2)
The $`\eta `$$`\eta ^{}`$ mass-matrix resulting from Eq.(1) gives $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses:

$$m_{\eta ^{},\eta }^2=(m_\mathrm{K}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^2/2)\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(2m_\mathrm{K}^22m_\pi ^2\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^2)^2+\frac{8}{9}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^4}.$$
(3)
If the gluonic term $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^2`$ were zero in this expression, one would have $`m_\eta ^{}=\sqrt{2m_\mathrm{K}^2m_\pi ^2}`$ and $`m_\eta =m_\pi `$. Without any extra input from glue, in the OZI limit, the $`\eta `$ would be approximately an isosinglet light-quark state ($`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$) degenerate with the pion and the $`\eta ^{}`$ would a strange-quark state $`|\overline{s}s`$ — mirroring the isoscalar vector $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons. Indeed, in an early paper weinberg  Weinberg argued that the mass of the $`\eta `$ would be less than $`\sqrt{3}m_\pi `$ without any extra U(1) dynamics to further break the axial U(1) symmetry. The gluonic contribution to the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ masses is about 300-400 MeV uppsala .

In the model calculations bassem  of FSI the meson-meson (re-)scattering potentials in the Bethe-Salpeter equation were derived from the Lagrangian (1). The OZI violating interaction $`\lambda Q^2\mathrm{Tr}_\mu U^\mu U^{}`$ veccb  was found to play a key role in the $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ channel. A simple estimate for the coupling $`\lambda `$ can be deduced from the decay $`\eta ^{}\eta \pi \pi `$ yielding two possible solutions with different signs. Especially interesting is the negative sign solution. When substituted into the Bethe-Salpeter equation this solution was found to yield a dynamically generated p-wave resonance with exotic quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=1^+`$. Furthermore, this resonance was found to have mass $`1400`$ MeV and width $`300`$ MeV – close to the observed exotics. (The width of the $`\pi _1(1400)`$ state measured in decays to $`\eta \pi `$ is $`385\pm 40`$MeV; the width of the $`\pi _1(1600)`$ measured in decays to $`\eta ^{}\pi `$ is $`340\pm 64`$MeV.) The topological charge density mediates the coupling of the dynamically generated light-mass exotic to the $`\eta \pi `$ and $`\eta ^{}\pi `$ channels in these calculations. For detailed discussion and the amplitudes for the individual channels which contribute to this dynamics, see bassem .

## 3 OZI violation in the $`\eta ^{}`$–nucleon system

Going beyond the meson sector, it is interesting to look for evidence of OZI violation in the $`\eta ^{}`$–nucleon system. Some guidance is provided by coupling the $`U_A`$(1)-extended chiral Lagrangian to the nucleon sb99 . Here we find a gluon-induced contact interaction in the $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ reaction close to threshold:

$$_{\mathrm{contact}}=\frac{i}{F_0^2}g_{QNN}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\eta _0}^2𝒞\eta _0\left(\overline{p}\gamma _5p\right)\left(\overline{p}p\right)$$
(4)
Here $`g_{QNN}`$ is an OZI violating coupling which measures the one particle irreducible coupling of the topological charge density $`Q`$ to the nucleon and $`𝒞`$ is a second OZI violating coupling which also features in $`\eta ^{}N`$ scattering. The physical interpretation of the contact term (4) is a “short distance” ($`0.2`$fm) interaction where glue is excited in the interaction region of the proton-proton collision and then evolves to become an $`\eta ^{}`$ in the final state. This gluonic contribution to the cross-section for $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ is extra to the contributions associated with meson exchange models holinde ; wilkin . There is no reason, a priori, to expect it to be small.

What is the phenomenology of this OZI violating interaction ?

Since glue is flavour-blind the contact interaction (4) has the same size in both the $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ and $`pnpn\eta ^{}`$ reactions. CELSIUS celsius  have measured the ratio $`R_\eta =\sigma (pnpn\eta )/\sigma (pppp\eta )`$ for quasifree $`\eta `$ production from a deuteron target up to 100 MeV above threshold. They observed that $`R_\eta `$ is approximately energy independent $`6.5`$ over the whole energy range — see Fig.1.

The value of this ratio signifies a strong isovector exchange contribution to the $`\eta `$ production mechanism celsius . This experiment can be repeated for $`\eta ^{}`$ production. The cross-section for $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ close to threshold has been measured at COSY cosy . A new experiment cosyprop  has been initiated to carry out the $`pnpn\eta ^{}`$ measurement. In the formal limit that the $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ reaction were dominated by gluonic-induced production, the ratio

$$R_\eta ^{}=\sigma (pnpn\eta ^{})/\sigma (pppp\eta ^{})$$
(5)
would approach unity close to threshold after we correct for final state interaction faldt  between the two outgoing nucleons. It will be interesting to compare future measurements of $`R_\eta ^{}`$ with the CELSIUS measurement celsius  of $`R_\eta `$. Given that $`\eta ^{}`$ phenomenology is characterised by large OZI violations, it is natural to expect large OZI effects in the $`pppp\eta ^{}`$ process.

Acknowledgements

SDB is supported by a Lise-Meitner Fellowship, M683, of the Austrian FWF. I thank W. Oelert and the COSY-11 Collaboration for hospitality in Juelich, P. Moskal for helpful discussions and E. Marco for collaboration on light-mass exotics.


format: text

text:
# Temperature dependence of spin-polarized transport in ferromagnet / unconventional superconductor junctions

## I Introduction

In recent years, transport properties in unconventional superconductor junctions have been studied both theoretically and experimentally. In these junctions, a zero energy state (ZES) Buchholtz ; Hara ; Hu  formed at the junction interface plays an important role in the tunneling spectroscopy. It is now well known the ZES is responsible for zero-bias conductance peak (ZBCP) in the high-TC superconductor junctions Kashiwaya1 ; Alff ; Covington ; Wei ; Wang ; Iguchi  and related phenomena Tanaka96 ; T1 ; T2 ; asano ; Tanu1 ; Tanu2 ; Tanu3 ; t1 ; t2 ; t3 ; t4 ; r1 . The theoretical studies clearly relate the formation of the ZES to the ZBCP in tunneling spectroscopy Tanaka1 ; Kashiwaya2 ; Kashiwaya3 ; Lofwander . Since the formation of the ZES is a general phenomenon in unconventional superconductor junctions, the ZBCP is also expected in spin-triplet superconductor junctions Yamashiro1 ; Yamashiro2 ; Yamashiro3 ; Honerkamp ; asano2 ; Kuroki3 ; Kusakabe . Actually, the ZBCP has been observed in junctions of Sr2RuO4 Laube ; Mao  and UBe13 Walti . The ZBCP has also been theoretically predicted for organic superconductors (TMTSF)2X very recently Sengupta ; Kuroki1 ; Kuroki2 .

From a view of future device application, transport properties in hybrid structures consist of ferromagnets and superconductors have attached much attention. It was pointed out in ferromagnet / insulator / spin-singlet unconventional superconductor (F/I/S) junctions that the amplitude of the ZBCP decreases with increasing the magnitude of the exchange potential in ferromagnets. This is because the exchange potential breaks the time-reversal symmetry and suppresses the retro-reflectivity of the Andreev reflection Andreev ; Zhu ; Kashiwaya4 ; Zutic ; Yoshida ; St ; Hirai ; Hirai1 ; Dong ; YC2 . Thus the ZBCP is sensitive to the degree of spin-polarization in ferromagnets. Since the tunneling conductance is independent of the magnitude of the insulating barrier YoshidaC1 , it is possible to estimate the spin-polarization in ferromagnets through the temperature dependence of the ZBCP. An experimental test would be carried out in La0.7Sr0.3MnO3/YBa2Cu3O7-x junctions in near future Chen ; Sawa1 ; Sawa2 ; Yeh .

When spin-triplet superconductors are attached to ferromagnets Yoshida ; St , the ZBCP depends not only on the spin-polarization also on other parameters such as relative angles between the $`d`$-vector in triplet superconductors and the magnetic moment in ferromagnets Hirai ; Hirai1 ; Kuroki3 ; Kusakabe . Thus it may be possible to know details of the pair potential by comparing the characteristic feature of the ZBCP in theoretical calculations and those in experiments. For this purpose, it is necessary to know effects of another ingredients such as temperatures and the profile of the pair potential near the junction interface on the ZBCP. It is known that the amplitude of pair potential is drastically suppressed at a surface or a interface of superconductors in the presence of the ZES Hara ; Nagato1 ; Matsumoto ; Ohashi ; Yamashiro3 ; Tanuma2001 . Although there are several studies on tunneling phenomena in ferromagnet / unconventional superconductor junctions so far Buzdin ; Sun , such issues have never been addressed yet.

In this paper, we calculate the tunneling conductance in ferromagnet / unconventional superconductor junctions as a function of temperatures and degrees of spin-polarization in ferromagnets, where the spatial dependence of the pair potential is determined self-consistently based on the quasiclassical Green’s function theory. We choose $`d`$-wave, and $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave symmetries for the pair potentials which are candidates for pairing symmetries of high-$`T_C`$ cuprates and Sr2RuO4, respectively. For comparison, we also study the conductance in $`p_x`$\- and $`p_y`$-wave superconductor junctions. From the calculated results, we reach the following conclusions.

(1) In $`d`$-wave junctions with (110) orientation and $`p_x`$-wave junctions, an incident quasiparticle from a ferromagnet always feels the ZES irrespective of the incident angles. The zero-bias tunneling conductance (ZBC) at the zero temperature is insensitive to the barrier potential at the interface. This result indicates a possibility to estimate the magnitude of the spin-polarization of ferromagnets at sufficiently low temperatures ($`T`$) in experiments.

(2)In $`d`$-wave junctions with (110) orientation and $`p_x`$-wave junctions, the ZBC monotonically decreases with increasing temperatures for small magnitudes of spin-polarization. On the other hand for large magnitudes of polarization, the ZBC becomes an increasing function of temperatures. While for $`d`$-wave junctions with (100) orientation and $`p_y`$-wave junctions, where the ZES does not appear, the ZBC is an increasing function of $`T`$ independent of the spin-polarization. For $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave junctions, the ZBC first decreases with increasing $`T`$ then increases.

(3)For $`p`$-wave junctions, the ZBC has various temperature dependence depending on the direction of the magnetic moment in ferromagnets. This unique property is peculiar to spin-triplet superconductors.

(4) Throughout this paper, we calculate the ZBC in two ways; i) the spatial dependence of the pair potential is assumed to be the step function (non-SCF calculation), ii) the spatial depletion of the pair potentials is determined self-consistently (SCF-calculation). By comparing the conductance in the two ways, we found that the results in the non-SCF calculation are qualitatively the same with those in the SCF-calculation.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. 2, we formulate the tunneling conductance with arbitrary angle between the magnetization axis of the ferromagnet and $`c`$-axis of the superconductor. We show the tunneling conductance depends on the direction of the magnetic moments only when superconductors have spin-triplet pairing. In Sec. 3, we calculate the polarization and temperature dependence of ZBC for both $`d`$-wave and $`p`$-wave junctions. In Sec. 4, we summarize this paper.

## II Formulation

Let us consider a two-dimensional F/I/S junction in the clean limit as shown in Fig. 1. We assume a flat interface at $`x=0`$. The insulator is described by the delta-function $`V(x)=H\delta (x)`$, where $`H`$ represents the strength of the barrier potential.

We also assume that the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ and the effective mass $`m`$ in the ferromagnet are equal to those in the superconductor. The Stoner model is applied to describe ferromagnets, where the exchange potential $`U`$ characterizes the ferromagnetism. The wave numbers in the ferromagnet for the majority ($`\overline{}`$) and the minority ($`\overline{}`$) spins are denoted by $`k_{\overline{}(\overline{})}=\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}(E_F+()U)}`$. The wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ are obtained by solving the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equation under the quasiclassical approximation Millis ; Bruder

$`E\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}\stackrel{~}{H}(𝐫,𝐫^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})\text{ , }\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{}(𝐫)\\ u_{}(𝐫)\\ v_{}(𝐫)\\ v_{}(𝐫)\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{H}(𝐫)\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})& \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐫,𝐫^{})\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{})& \widehat{H}^{}(𝐫)\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
where $`E`$ is the energy of a quasiparticle measured from $`E_F`$, $`\widehat{H}(𝐫)=h_0\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}𝐔(𝐫)𝝈(𝐫)`$, $`h_0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V(x)E_F`$, $`𝐔(𝐫)=U\mathrm{\Theta }(x)𝐧`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ and $`𝝈`$ are the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix and the Pauli matrix, respectively. Here $`𝐧`$ points the direction of the magnetic moment in ferromagnets and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside step function. The indices $``$ and $``$ denote the spin degree of freedom of a quasiparticle in superconductors. The magnetization axis in ferromagnets is represented in a polar coordinate $`(\theta _M,\varphi _M)`$ as shown in Fig. 1. We assume that the quantization axis of spin in the triplet superconductors is in the $`c`$-axis which is parallel to $`z`$ direction. At first, we assume that the pair potential is a constant independent of $`x`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S)\mathrm{\Theta }(x),$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S)`$ does not have the spatial dependence, $`k_x=k_F\mathrm{cos}\theta _S`$ and $`k_y=k_F\mathrm{sin}\theta _S`$ are the wavenumber in superconductors with $`k_F`$ being the Fermi wave number. The pair potential $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S)`$ is given by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
The Hamiltonian in Eq. (9) is written in the coordinate of the spin space in the superconductor. It is comprehensive to rewrite the Hamiltonian in the coordinate of spin space in the ferromagnet since this notation is useful to consider the scattering processes. The Hamiltonian in the coordinate of spin space in the ferromagnet is obtained by using the following unitary transformation:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_F(𝐫,𝐫^{})=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}\stackrel{~}{H}(𝐫,𝐫^{})\stackrel{~}{U},`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{U}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{U}& 0\\ 0& \widehat{U}^{}\end{array}\right),`$ $`\widehat{U}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _1& \gamma _2^{}\\ \gamma _2& \gamma _1^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (19)
$`\gamma _1=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _M}{2}}e^{i\varphi _M},`$ $`\gamma _2=\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _M}{2}}e^{i\varphi _M},`$ (20)
where $`\widehat{U}`$ is the operator which diagonalizes the $`\widehat{H}(𝐫)`$. The effective pair potential in the coordinate of spin space in ferromagnet is rewritten as

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^F(\theta _S)=\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S)\widehat{U}^{}.`$ (21)
Here, we consider the four types of pair potentials, $`d`$-wave, $`p_x`$-wave, $`p_y`$-wave and $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave symmetries in superconductors. In $`d`$-wave case, the pair potential is described as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)\mathrm{\Delta }_0f(\theta _S),`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)=0,`$ (23)
$`f(\theta _S)=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}[2(\theta _S\alpha )],`$ (24)
where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between $`a`$-axis of the high-$`T_c`$ superconductors and the interface normal. The effective pair potential in the coordinate of spin space in ferromagnet is given by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^F(\theta _S)`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{}\overline{}}^F(\theta _S)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{}\overline{}}^F(\theta _S)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{}\overline{}}^F(\theta _S)& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{}\overline{}}^F(\theta _S)\end{array}\right),`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Delta }_0f(\theta _S)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_0f(\theta _S)& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S).`$ (31)
As shown in Eq. (31), the expression of the pair potential remains unchanged under the transformation in Eq. (14). Therefore transport properties are expected to be independent of the direction of the magnetic moment. This conclusion can be applied to any spin-singlet superconductors. On the other hand in spin-triplet superconductors, the pair potentials are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0f(\theta _S),`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta _S)=0,`$ (33)
where the direction of the $`d`$-vector is parallel to the $`c`$-axis and

$$f(\theta _S)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _S& \text{for}& p_x\text{symmetry},\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _S& \text{for}& p_y\text{symmetry},\\ \text{e}^{i\theta _S}& \text{for}& p_x+ip_y\text{symmetry}.\end{array}$$
(34)
Because the spin degree of freedom of Cooper pairs is active in triplet superconductors, the pair potential after the transformation in Eq. (14) depends on the direction of the magnetic moment

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^F(\theta _S)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\theta _M& \mathrm{cos}\theta _M\\ \mathrm{cos}\theta _M& \mathrm{sin}\theta _M\end{array}\right)f(\theta _S)\mathrm{\Delta }_0.`$ (37)
There are four reflection processes when an electron with the majority spin is incident from ferromagnets:
i) Andreev reflection to majority spin ($`a_{\overline{}\overline{}}`$)
ii) Andreev reflection to minority spin ($`a_{\overline{}\overline{}}`$)
iii) normal reflection to majority spin ($`b_{\overline{}\overline{}}`$) and
iv) normal reflection to minority spin ($`b_{\overline{}\overline{}}`$).
Similar reflection processes are also possible, when an electron with the minority spin is incident from ferromagnets. The Andreev and the normal reflection coefficients are denoted by $`a_{\overline{s}\overline{s}^{}}`$ and $`b_{\overline{s}\overline{s}^{}}`$, respectively. In these coefficients, a quasiparticle is reflected from the spin-channel $`\overline{s}`$ into the spin-channel $`\overline{s}^{}`$.

The wave function in ferromagnets for majority spin injection is represented by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\overline{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ik_{F\overline{}}x}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)+a_{\overline{}\overline{}}e^{ik_{F\overline{}}x}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)+a_{\overline{}\overline{}}e^{ik_{F\overline{}}x}`$ (46)
$`\times `$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)+b_{\overline{}\overline{}}e^{ik_{F\overline{}}x}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)+b_{\overline{}\overline{}}e^{ik_{F\overline{}}x}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (59)
where $`k_{F\overline{}}<k_S<k_{F\overline{}}`$ and $`k_S\sqrt{\frac{2mE_F}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$. The wave function for minority spin injection is written in the similar way. The coefficients $`a_{\overline{s}\overline{s}^{}}`$ and $`b_{\overline{s}\overline{s}^{}}`$ are determined by solving the BdG equation with the quasiclassical approximation under appropriate boundary conditions.

The tunneling conductance $`\sigma _T(eV)`$ for finite temperature is given by BTK ; Zaitsev ; Shelankov

$`\sigma _T(eV)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}G,`$ (61)
$`G`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16k_BT}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta _S\mathrm{cos}\theta _S`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(\sigma _{S\overline{}}(\theta _S)+\sigma _{S\overline{}}(\theta _S)\right)\text{sech}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{EeV}{2k_BT}}\right),`$ (62)
$`\sigma _{S\overline{}}=`$ $`1+|a_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2|b_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\overline{}}{\eta _\overline{}}}|a_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\overline{}}{\eta _\overline{}}}|b_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _C|\theta _S|),`$ (63)
$`\sigma _{S\overline{}}=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\overline{}}{\eta _\overline{}}}|a_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2+|a_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\overline{}}{\eta _\overline{}}}|b_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2|b_{\overline{}\overline{}}|^2\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _C|\theta _S|),`$ (64)
with $`Z_{\theta _S}=Z/\mathrm{cos}\theta _S`$, $`Z=2mH/\mathrm{}^2k_F`$ and $`\eta _{\overline{}(\overline{})}=\sqrt{1\pm X/\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _S}`$. Here $`X=U/E_F`$ is defined as the spin-polarization parameter. The quantity $`\sigma _{S\overline{}(\overline{})}`$ is the tunneling conductance for an incident electron with the majority (minority) spin. For $`|\theta _S|>\theta _C=\mathrm{cos}^1\sqrt{X}`$, the reflected wave becomes an evanescent wave and does not contribute to the tunneling conductance. As shown in above equations, the tunneling conductance depends on $`\theta _M`$ only when superconductors have spin-triplet Cooper pairs. The tunneling conductance can be summarized in simple equations in following several cases. When $`\theta _M`$ is 0 or $`\pi `$ in spin-triplet superconductors, the conductance is described by

$`\sigma _{S\overline{}}=`$ $`\sigma _{N\overline{}}(A+B),`$ (65)
$`\sigma _{S\overline{}}=`$ $`\sigma _{N\overline{}}C`$ (66)
$`A=`$ $`[1|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}|^2(1\sigma _{N\widehat{}})+\sigma _{N\overline{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+|^2]`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _C|\theta _S|)/L_{D1},`$ (67)
$`B=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _C|\theta _S|)[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2]/L_{D1},`$ (68)
$`C=`$ $`[1|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}|^2(1\sigma _{N\overline{}})+\sigma _{N\overline{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+|^2]`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _C|\theta _S|)/L_{D2},`$ (69)
$`L_{D1}=`$ $`|1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\sqrt{1\sigma _{N\overline{}}}\sqrt{1\sigma _{N\overline{}}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i(\phi _\overline{}\phi _\overline{})\right]|^2,`$ (70)
$`L_{D2}=`$ $`|1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\sqrt{1\sigma _{N\overline{}}}\sqrt{1\sigma _{N\overline{}}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i(\phi _\overline{}\phi _\overline{})\right]|^2,`$ (71)
with

$`\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _\overline{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta _\overline{}+iZ_{\theta _S}}{\sqrt{1\sigma _{N\overline{}}}(1+\eta _\overline{}iZ_{\theta _S})}},`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _\overline{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta _\overline{}iZ_{\theta _S}}{\sqrt{1\sigma _{N\overline{}}}(1+\eta _\overline{}iZ_{\theta _S})}}.`$ (73)
Above equations can be applied to the spin-singlet superconductors. When $`\theta _M=\pi /2`$ in spin-triplet superconductors, the conductance for each spin is given by

$`\sigma _{S\overline{}}=`$ $`\sigma _{N\overline{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}|^2(1\sigma _{N\overline{}})+\sigma _{N\overline{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+|^2}{|1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(1\sigma _{N\overline{}})|^2}},`$ (74)
$`\sigma _{S\overline{}}=`$ $`\sigma _{N\overline{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}|^2(1\sigma _{N\overline{}})+\sigma _{N\overline{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_+|^2}{|1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(1\sigma _{N\overline{}})|^2}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _C|\theta _S|).`$ (75)
In above equations, we define

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm =`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{E\sqrt{E^2|\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta _S)|^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta _S)^{}}},`$ (76)
$`\sigma _{N\overline{}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\eta _\overline{}}{(1+\eta _\overline{})^2+Z_{\theta _S}^2}},`$ (77)
$`\sigma _{N\overline{}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\eta _\overline{}}{(1+\eta _\overline{})^2+Z_{\theta _S}^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _C|\theta _S|).`$ (78)
In this paper, the dependence of the pair potential on temperatures is described by the BCS’s gap equation. The spatial dependence of the pair potential can be described by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)`$ with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)=\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$. In order to determine the spatial dependence of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)`$, we apply the quasiclassical Green’s function theory developed by Hara, Nagai, et. al. Hara ; Ashida ; Nagato ; Ohashi . In the following, we briefly explain the method in the case of spin-singlet superconductors. An extension to spin-triplet superconductors is straightforward. The spatial dependence of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)`$ is calculated by the diagonal elements of the matrix Green function $`g_{\alpha \alpha }(x)`$ which are represented by

$`g_{++}(\theta _S,x)=`$ $`i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1+D_+(x)F_+(x)}{1D_+(x)F_+(x)}& \frac{2iF_+(x)}{1D_+(x)F_+(x)}\\ \frac{2iD_+(x)}{1D_+(x)F_+(x)}& \frac{1+D_+(x)F_+(x)}{1D_+(x)F_+(x)}\end{array}\right),`$ (81)
$`g_{}(\theta _S,x)=`$ $`i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1+D_{}(x)F_{}(x)}{1+D_{}(x)F_{}(x)}& \frac{2iF_{}(x)}{1+D_{}(x)F_{}(x)}\\ \frac{2iD_{}(x)}{1+D_{}(x)F_{}(x)}& \frac{1+D_{}(x)F_{}(x)}{1+D_{}(x)F_{}(x)}\end{array}\right),`$ (84)
where an index $`\alpha =\pm `$ specifies the direction of the momentum in the $`x`$ direction. In these Green functions, $`D_\alpha (x)`$ and $`F_\alpha (x)`$ obey the following equations

$`\mathrm{}|v_{Fx}|D_\alpha (x)=\alpha `$
$`\times \left[2\omega _mD_\alpha (x)+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)D_\alpha ^2(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(\theta _S,x)\right],`$ (85)
$`\mathrm{}|v_{Fx}|F_\alpha (x)=\alpha `$
$`\times \left[2\omega _mF_\alpha (x)+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(\theta _S,x)F_\alpha ^2(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)\right],`$ (86)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (89)
The boundary conditions at the interface are given by Tanuma2001 ; Hirai2

$`F_+(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _\overline{}1+iZ)(\eta _\overline{}1iZ)}{(\eta _\overline{}+1+iZ)(\eta _\overline{}+1iZ)}}D_{}(0)^1,`$ (90)
$`F_{}^1(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _\overline{}1+iZ)(\eta _\overline{}1iZ)}{(\eta _\overline{}+1+iZ)(\eta _\overline{}+1iZ)}}D_+(0).`$ (91)
We first solve $`D_\pm (x)`$ and $`F_\pm (x)`$ in Eqs. (85) and (86), then calculate $`g_{\pm ,\pm }(\theta ,x)`$ in Eqs. (81) and (84) for a given $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)`$. By using $`g_{\pm ,\pm }(\theta ,x)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)`$ is given by the following equations

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta _S^{}V(\theta _S,\theta _S^{})g_{\alpha ,\alpha }(\theta _S^{},x),`$ (92)
$`V(\theta ,\theta ^{})=`$ $`g_0f(\theta )f(\theta ^{}),`$ (93)
$`g_0=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi k_BT}{\mathrm{ln}(T/T_C)+_{0<m<m_a}\frac{1}{m+1/2}}},`$ (94)
where we introduce the cut-off $`m_a`$ to regularize $`g_0`$ and $`f(\theta )`$ is given in Eqs. (24) and (34). The iteration is carried out until the sufficient convergence is obtained. In this way, we obtain $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta ,x)`$, i.e., $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta ,x)`$ self-consistently.

Under the pair potential in the self-consistent calculation, we obtain $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pm (x)`$ by solving

$`i\mathrm{}|v_{Fx}|\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+(x)`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha \left[2E\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_+^2(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(\theta _S,x)\right],`$ (95)
$`i\mathrm{}|v_{Fx}|\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{}(x)`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha \left[2E\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{}(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(\theta _S,x)\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{}^2(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta _S,x)\right].`$ (96)
By substituting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ into Eqs. (65)-(76), we can calculate the tunneling conductance. In what follows, we assume that the transition temperature of ferromagnets is much larger than $`T_C`$ which is the transition temperature of superconductors. In such situation, we can neglect the temperature dependence of $`X`$.

## III Results

### III.1 polarization dependence of zero-bias conductance

In this subsection, we show calculated results of the ZBC at the zero temperature as a function of the spin-polarization in ferromagnets ($`X`$). The dimensionless ZBC ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\sigma _T(0)h}{2e^2}.$$
(97)
At first we show the conductance obtained in the step-function model, where the spatial dependence of the pair potential is not determined self-consistently (non-SCF calculation). The $`X`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at the zero temperature for $`d`$-wave junctions is plotted in Fig. 2. The magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is always a decreasing function of $`X`$. For $`\alpha =0`$ (Fig. 2(a)), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases with increasing of $`Z`$. On the other hand, for $`\alpha =\pi /4`$ (Fig. 2(b)), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is completely independent of $`Z`$ because of the perfect Andreev reflection due to the zero-energy resonance state at the interface.

Secondly, we show the polarization dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in triplet $`p_x`$, $`p_y`$ and $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave superconductor junctions as shown in Fig. 3, where the pair potential are given in Eqs. (32), (33) and (34). The conductance depends on $`\theta _M`$ for all pairing symmetries. The spin degree of freedom remains in spin-triplet superconductors. As a consequence, the conductance depends on the relative angle between the magnetic moment in ferromagnets and $`d`$-vector in superconductor. This is the characteristic feature of $`p`$-wave junctions. For $`\theta _M=0`$, as shown in Figs. 3 (a), (d), and (g), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ approaches to zero in the limit of $`X1`$ independent of $`Z`$. In these cases, the diagonal elements in Eq. (13) disappear and a quasiparticle suffers the spin-flip in the Andreev reflection, (i.e., $`a_{\overline{},\overline{}}=a_{\overline{},\overline{}}=0`$). For $`|\theta _S|>\theta _C`$, the Andreev reflection to $`\overline{}`$ spin becomes the evanescent wave. At the same time, an incident wave with $`\overline{}`$ spin vanishes. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes in the limit of $`X=1`$, where ferromagnets are referred to as half-metals. On the other hand, for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _M0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ takes finite values even in $`X1`$ as shown in Figs. 3 (b) (c), (e) (f) (h), and (i) because the spin-conserved Andreev reflection is still possible in these junctions. The results for $`\theta _M=\pi /2`$ are shown in Figs. 3 (c) (f) and (i). In this case, the off-diagonal elements in Eq. (37) become zero. Thus spin of a quasiparticle is conserved in the Andreev reflection, (i.e., $`a_{\overline{},\overline{}}=a_{\overline{},\overline{}}=0`$). The Andreev reflection of an electron with $`\overline{}`$ spin survives irrespective of $`\theta _S`$, whereas that of an electron with $`\overline{}`$ spin vanishes for $`|\theta _S|>\theta _C`$. We note in $`p_x`$-wave junctions that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not depend on $`Z`$ as well as $`d`$-wave junctions with $`\alpha =\pi /4`$. This is because the ZES’s are formed at the interface.

Thirdly we show the tunneling conductance under the pair potential whose spatial dependence is determined self-consistently ( SCF calculation). The results for $`d`$, $`p_x`$, $`p_y`$, and $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave junctions are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The conductance in SCF calculation in Figs.4 and 5 should be compared with corresponding results in non-SCF calculation in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. We do not find any remarkable differences between the results in SCF calculation and those in non-SCF calculation as shown in these figures.

Finally, $`X`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is plotted for various temepratures. As seen from Fig. 2(b), using tunneling through ZES, we can determine the magnitude of $`X`$ thtough the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is a unique propetry for $`d`$-wave superconductor with $`\alpha =\pi /4`$, or $`p`$-wave junctions where all quasiparticles feel ABS independent of their directions of motions. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is plotted at zero temperature in Fig. 2(b), it is actually important how this property holds even in finite temepratures. As shown in Fig. 6, when the magnitude of the temperature $`T`$ is sufficiently smaller than $`T_C`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is almost insensitive to the magnitude of $`Z`$ and we can estimate the magnitude of $`X`$ through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the actual experiments, high $`T_C`$ cuprates, $`e.g.`$, YBaCuO, BiSrCaCuO, with (110) oriented interface is a promising candidate. In such a case, the actual value of $`0.001T_C`$ becomes 0.1K and this temperature is fully accesible in the experiments.

### III.2 Temperature dependence of zero-bias conductance

In this subsection, we discuss the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the first part, we show the conductance in the non-SCF calculation. Then the results are compared with those in the SCF calculation in the second part. At first let us focus on $`d`$-wave junctions for $`\alpha =0`$ as shown in Figs. 7 (a), (b), (c), where the conductance is plotted as a function of temperatures for several magnitudes of the exchange potential $`X`$. We note in these junctions that the ZES is not formed at the interface. For $`Z=0`$ (see Fig. 7(a)), the exchange potential in ferromagnets significantly affects the temperature-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For large $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ increases with the increase of $`T`$ as shown in the curve $`d`$ in Fig. 7(a). The Andreev reflection (two-electron process) is suppressed by the large exchange potential and the current is mainly carried by single electron process. While for small $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases with the increase of $`T`$ as shown in curve $`a`$ in Fig. 7(a). This is because the current at the zero-voltage is mainly carried by two-electron process through the Andreev reflection and the amplitude of the Andreev reflection is suppressed for $`TT_C`$. For $`Z=5`$ (Fig. 7(c)), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes small around $`T0`$ because the insulating barrier suppresses the Andreev reflection. The results show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ increases monotonically with increasing temperatures independent of $`X`$ since the current is mainly carried by single electron process. For $`Z=1`$ (Fig. 7(b)), excepting for large $`X`$, the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a non-monotonic temperature dependence, since the amplitude of single-electron process (Andreev reflection) is enhanced (suppressed) with the increase of $`T`$.

Secondly we show the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`d`$-wave junctions with $`\alpha =\pi /4`$ in Figs. 7(d), (e), and (f). For $`Z=0`$, the line shape of the all curves in Fig. 7(d) are qualitatively similar to those with $`\alpha =0`$ shown in Fig. 7(a) since ZES is not formed at the interface. We note in Figs. 7 (d), (e) and (f) that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at the zero temperature is independent of $`Z`$. The Andreev reflection is perfect in the limit of $`Z=0`$. For finite $`Z`$, the ZES is formed at the interface which also leads to the perfect Andreev reflection at $`T=0`$. The characteristic behavior of the resonant tunneling can be seen in the conductance for large $`Z`$. The amplitude of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is proportional to the inverse of $`T`$ for intermediate temperatures (curve $`a`$ in Fig. 7 (f)). Since the retro-reflectivity of Andreev reflection is broken by the exchange potentials, the degree of the resonance at the interface is weakened. As a results, the temperature dependence deviates from the inverse of $`T`$ in curbs b, c and d in Fig. 7 (f). For sufficiently large magnitudes of $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes an increasing function of $`T`$ for $`T>0.5T_C`$ as shown in Fig. 7(f). In the case of the $`d`$-wave with $`\alpha =\pi /4`$, we can estimate the magnitude of $`X`$ from the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Thirdly we show temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`p_x`$-wave junctions with $`\theta _M=0`$ in Figs. 8(a), (b), (c) and those with $`\pi /2`$ in Figs. 9(a), (b), (c). As shown in Figs. 8(a), (b) (c), the temperature dependences of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are very similar to those of $`d`$-wave junctions with $`\alpha =\pi /4`$. When $`\theta _M=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for small $`X`$ is a decreasing function of $`T`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for large $`X`$ is an increasing function of $`T`$. In the case of $`\theta _M=\pi /2`$, however, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes a monotonic decreasing function of $`T`$ independent of $`Z`$ as shown in Figs. 9(a), (b), (c). The spin of a quasiparticle is always conserved in the Andreev reflection in this case. Therefore the suppression of the conductance due to the breakdown of the retro-reflectivity becomes weaker than that in the case of $`\theta _M=0`$.

Next we show the conductance in $`p_y`$-wave junctions with $`\theta _M=0`$ in Figs. 8(d), (e), (f) and those with $`\pi /2`$ in Figs. 9(d), (e), (f). In $`\theta _M=0`$, the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are similar to those of $`d`$-wave junctions with $`\alpha =0`$ shown in Figs. 7(a),(b),(c). In these junctions, no ZES is expected at the interface. In $`\theta _M=\pi /2`$ as shown in Figs. 9(d), (e), (f), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for large $`X`$ are larger than those with $`\theta _M=0`$ in low temperatures. In the case of $`\theta _M=\pi /2`$, the spin of a quasiparticle is conserved in the Andreev reflection, therefore, the suppression of conductance due to the breakdown of retro-reflectivity becomes weaker than that in the case of $`\theta _M=0`$.

Finally we show the conductance in $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave junctions with $`\theta _M=0`$ in Figs. 8(g), (h), (i) and those with $`\pi /2`$ in Figs. 9(g), (h), (i). In $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave junctions with $`\theta _M=0`$, the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be understood by the combination of the results in $`p_x`$-wave and those in $`p_y`$-wave junctions because the ZES is only expected for a quasiparticle incident perpendicular to the interface Kusakabe . As seen from Fig. 8 (g) for $`Z`$=0, there is no clear difference between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave junctions with $`\theta _M=0`$ and corresponding results in $`p_x`$ or $`p_y`$-wave junctions shown in Figs. 8(a) and (d). For a finite barrier potential at $`Z=1`$, the line shape of the all curves in Fig. 8(h) is rather similar to corresponding results in the $`p_x`$-wave junctions than those in the $`p_y`$-wave junctions. However, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are smaller than those in the $`p_x`$-wave junctions. For $`Z=5`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for small $`X`$ are enhanced at low temperatures because of the ZES \[see curve $`a`$ in Fig. 8(i) \]. On the other hand, for large $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an increasing function of $`T`$ \[see curve $`d`$ in Fig. 8(i) \]. For $`\theta _M=\pi /2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes a decreasing function of $`T`$ for all cases as shown in Figs. 9(g), (h), (i). These features are similar to those in the $`p_x`$-wave junctions.

It is important to check how the above results are modified in the presence of the spatial dependence in the pair potential near the interface. We show the conductance in SCF calculation in the second part of this subsection. In what follows, we consider two cases of $`X`$, $`X=0`$ (curve $`a`$) and $`X=0.9`$ (curve $`b`$). The corresponding results in non-SCF calculation are curves $`a`$ (X=0) and $`c`$ (X=0.9) from Figs. 7 to 9.

In Fig. 10, we show the conductance in SCF calculation in the $`d`$-wave junctions with $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\pi /4`$. It is found that the temperature dependences of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\alpha =0`$ in the SCF calculation are very similar to those in the non-SCF calculation when we compare the results in Figs. 7(a), (b), (c) with those in Figs. 10(a), (b), (c). The same tendency can be seen between the results the $`d`$-wave junctions with $`\alpha =\pi /4`$ in Figs. 7 (d), (e), (f) and those in Figs. 10(d), (e), (f). When the ZES are formed at the interface, the profile of the pair potential significantly deviates from the step-function. The characteristic behavior of the conductance in the SCF, however, is qualitatively the same with those in the no-SCF. From the calculated results, we conclude that the conductance is insensitive to the profile of the pair potential. This is because the resonant tunneling through the ZES dominates the conductance. We note that the ZES is a consequence of the sign-change of the pair potential.

In the $`p_x`$-wave junctions, line shapes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`\theta _M=0`$ shown in Figs. 11(a), (b), (c) are very similar to those in the $`d`$-wave junctions with $`\alpha =\pi /4`$. For $`\theta _M=\pi /2`$, as shown in Figs. 12(a), (b), (d), the magnitudes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are slightly larger than those in Figs. 11(a), (b), (c). These features are almost similar to those found in non-SCF calculation in Figs. 8(a), (b), (c) and Figs. 9(a), (b), (c).

As well as in the $`p_x`$-wave junctions, the characteristic behavior of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in SCF results in $`p_y`$-wave junctions shown in Figs. 11(d), (e), (f) and Figs. 12(d), (e), (f) are almost the same with those obtained in non-SCF calculation shown in Figs. 8(d), (e), (f) and Figs. 9(d), (e), (f).

In the case of $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave symmetry, the line-shapes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for (g), (h) and (i) in Figs. 11 and 12 are similar to those in non-SCF results shown in (g) and (h) in Figs. 8 and 9. However, the temperature dependencies of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ based on the SCF calculation deviate from those in the non-SCF one for large $`Z`$ \[Fig. 11(i) and Fig. 12(i)\]. In the SCF calculation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ first decreases with the increase of $`T`$ then increases. The decreasing part is similar to that in the $`p_x`$-wave case and is explained by the ZES. The increasing part is similar to that in the $`p_y`$-wave junctions. Since only a quasiparticle injected perpendicular to the interface contributes to the ZES, the effects of the spatial dependence of the pair potentials on the conductance are not be negligible Yamashiro3 .

## IV Summary

In this paper, we have calculated the polarization and temperature dependence of the zero-bias conductance (ZBC) in F/I/S junctions, where we have chosen the symmetry of the pair potential as $`d`$-wave for high $`T_C`$ cuprates and $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave for Sr2RuO4. As a reference, we have also studied the conductance in $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$-wave junctions. We have established a formalism of the ZBC which is available for the arbitrary $`\theta _M`$ which is the angle between the magnetization axis in ferromagnet and $`c`$-axis of superconductors. The $`\theta _M`$ dependence of the tunneling conductance only appears in the spin-triplet superconductor junctions. On the basis of the numerical results, we reach the following conclusions.

(1) When injected quasiparticles from ferromagnets always feel the zero-energy resonance state, $`e.g.`$, $`d`$-wave junction with (110) orientation and $`p_x`$-wave junction, the zero-bias tunneling conductance (ZBC) at the zero temperature is insensitive to the barrier potential at the interface. This property is useful for the determination of the degree of the spin-polarization in ferromagnets at sufficiently low temperatures. One of the promising candidate is LaSrMnO/YBaCuO(BiSrCaCuO) with well oriented (110) oriented interface. Within our theory, below 0.1K we can estimate the magnitude of polarization of ferromagnets through the value of the conductance of the junctions.

(2) For $`d`$-wave junctions with (110) orientation and $`p_x`$-wave junctions, the ZBC decreases with increasing temperatures when the degree of the polarization, $`X`$, is small. For large $`X`$, the ZBC is an increasing function of $`T`$. The presence of the ZES explains these behavior. In $`d`$-wave junctions with (100) orientation and $`p_y`$-wave junctions, the ZBC is an increasing function of $`T`$ independent of $`X`$. This is because the ZES does not appear at these junction interface. For $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave junctions, the ZBC first decreases with increasing $`T`$ then increases.

(3) In $`p`$-wave junctions, the temperature dependence of the ZBC depends on the direction of the magnetization axis of ferromagnets because of the spin degree of freedom of Cooper pairs in spin-triplet superconductors.

(4) Throughout this paper, we have calculated the ZBC in two ways; i) the spatial dependence of the pair potential is assumed to be the step function (non-SCF calculation), ii) the spatial depletion of the pair potentials are determined self-consistently (SCF-calculation). We have confirmed that there are no remarkable differences between the conductance in the non-SCF calculation and those in the SCF calculation.

In this paper, effects of random potentials in ferromagnets are not taken into account. Recently, there are several works on random scattering effects in unconventional superconductor junctions Itoh2002 ; Asano2000 ; Nazarov ; YY ; future . It is actually interesting to study transport properties of junctions where diffusive ferromagnets are attached to unconventional superconductors. In the present paper, the splitting of the ZBCP by magnetic fields through the Zeeman effect or magnetic impurities in an insulator are not taken into account Zhu ; Kashiwaya4 ; Zutic . These are interesting and important future issues.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST) of the Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JST). J.I. acknowledges support by the NEDO international Joint Research project ”Nano-scale Magnetoelectronics”.


text:
# Exact microscopic wave function for a topological quantum membrane

## Abstract

The higher dimensional quantum Hall liquid constructed recently supports stable topological membrane excitations. Here we introduce a microscopic interacting Hamiltonian and present its exact ground state wave function. We show that this microscopic ground state wave function describes a topological quantum membrane. We also construct variational wave functions for excited states using the non-commutative algebra on the four sphere. Our approach introduces a non-perturbative method to quantize topological membranes.

Recently, a higher dimensional generalization of the quantum Hall effect has been constructed by Zhang and Hu (ZH)zhang2001A . The fundamental fermionic fluid particles move on the surface of a four sphere ($`S^4`$)with radius $`R`$, and carry $`SU(2)`$ gauge degrees of freedom in the representation $`I`$. The instanton density of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge field is uniformly distributed over $`S^4`$. ZH considered the limit where $`I\mathrm{}`$ when $`R\mathrm{}`$, such that $`R^2/2Il^2`$ is held constant. $`l`$ defines the fundamental magnetic length in this problem. This quantum Hall liquid shares many properties of the familiar 2D quantum Hall liquid, including incompressibility, fractional charge and gapless edge states. This theory has been further developed in refs. hu2002A ; fabinger2002A ; karabali2002A ; chen2002A ; sparling2002A ; kimura2002A ; bernevig2002A ; ramgoolam2002A ; elvang2002A ; chen2002B .

Bernevig et albernevig2002A  have recently constructed a topological field theory for the new quantum Hall liquid. The configuration space in this problem is $`CP_3`$, which is locally the product of the orbital space $`S^4`$ and the isospin space $`S^2`$. The Chern-Simons theory can be defined either over the configuration space $`CP_3`$, or on the orbital space $`S^4`$. The later can be obtained from the former through the fuzzification of the isospin sphere $`S^2`$. This field theoretical study reveals an important class of extended topological objects, including the membrane (2-brane) and the 4-brane. The membranes wrap the isospin $`S^2`$ and have a non-trivial statistical interaction which generalize the concept of fractional statistics of Laughlin quasi-particles.

In this paper, we investigate microscopic properties of the membranes found in the study of Bernevig et al. We shall introduce a microscopic interaction Hamiltonian in the lowest-Landau-level (LLL), and find its exact ground state wave function. This wave function is a natural generalization of Laughlin’s wave function for the 2D QHElaughlin1983A ; haldane1983A . We then show that this wave function describes a collection of particles forming a membrane, wrapped around the isospin $`S^2`$. This wave function is a $`SO(5)`$ singlet, therefore, the center of mass of the membrane is uniformly delocalized on $`S^4`$. We also discuss the excitations of the membrane in terms of the non-commutative algebra on $`S^4`$.

The importance of the exact membrane wave function may be viewed from different perspectives. Up to this point, only microscopic information about the ZH model are based on non-interacting physics. An elementary analysis of the boundary degrees of freedom reveals an “embarrassment of riches”zhang2001A ; hu2002A . The total configuration space at the boundary is $`S^3\times S^2`$. In the non-interacting limit, isospin excitations are gapless, leading to massless states with all helicities. In addition, there is also an incoherent fermionic background. The entropy at the boundary therefore scales like $`R^5`$, unlike the $`R^3`$ scaling one would expect from a conventional $`3+1`$ dimensional field theory. A possible solution to this problem could come from an “isospin gap”, introduced by the mutual interaction among the particles. In this case, for energy scales below the “isospin gap”, the entropy would scale like $`R^3`$. Our exact membrane solution in the presence of the interaction indeed suggests this behavior. Since our membrane wraps the isospin $`S^2`$, its internal degrees of freedom behaves like a a 2D QH liquid with an incompressibility gap. Beyond the problem of current interest, our exact membrane solution gives a new way to quantize a membrane beyond Polyakov’s path integral quantization, and could yield valuable information about the strong coupling limit of quantum membranes. Finally, two possible interpretation of the elusive “M theory” are the matrix and membrane theoriesbanks1997A ; taylor2001A . In our model, these two theories are intimately related. In the LLL, the fundamental particles can be described by a matrix model. Our exact wave function shows microscopically how membranes emerge from a collection of matrix particles.

Let us first recall that the single particle wave function in the LLL of the 4DQHE problem is given by

$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p!}{m_1!m_2!m_3!m_4!}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{m_1}\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{m_2}\mathrm{\Psi }_3^{m_3}\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{m_4}`$ (1)
with integers $`m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4=p=2I`$. The four component spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ can be expressed directly in terms of the $`S^4`$ and the $`S^2`$ coordinates, as given in eq. (5) of ref. zhang2001A . The degeneracy of the single particle ground states is given by

$`D(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(p+1)(p+2)(p+3)`$ (2)
A rather remarkable feature is that while higher LL states are $`SO(5)`$ symmetric, the LLL states enjoy an additional $`SU(4)`$ symmetry, as one can see directly from eq. (1). $`SO(5)`$ group is isomorphic to the $`Sp(4)`$ group, which differs from the $`SU(4)`$ group only through an additional structure associated with the charge conjugation matrix $``$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$, with $`a=1,..,5`$ be the five Dirac Gamma matrices satisfying the Clifford algebra $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\}=2\delta _{ab}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}=\frac{i}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_b]`$ form the generators of the $`SO(5)`$ Lie algebra. The $``$ matrix is defined by the following properties:

$`^2=1,^{}=^1={}_{}{}^{t}=`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a={}_{}{}^{t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{a},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}={}_{}{}^{t}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{ab}`$ (4)
The relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}^1=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab})^{}`$ indicates that the spinor representation of $`SO(5)`$ is pseudo-real. The $``$ matrix plays a role similar to that of $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ in $`SO(3)`$. In the explicit representation given by eq. (4) of ref. zhang2001A , the $``$ matrix takes the form

$`=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _y& 0\\ 0& \sigma _y\end{array}\right)`$ (7)
where $`\sigma _y`$ is a Pauli matrix. The presence of the $``$ matrix breaks the $`SU(4)`$ symmetry down to the $`SO(5)=Sp(4)`$ symmetry. Since the LLL wave functions do not involve the $``$ matrix, they are $`SU(4)`$ invariant. However, the $`R`$ matrix is needed to construct wave functions in higher LLschern2002A , which are only $`SO(5)`$ invariant.

Having reviewed the wave functions in the LLL and introduced the concept of the $``$ matrix, we now present our microscopic wave function. In the 2DQHE, the $`\nu =1`$ wave function can be expressed either as a Slater determinant or as a Jastrow-Laughlin type product wave function. The van der Monde identity relates them exactly. However, this identity does not hold in higher dimension. We shall see the profound physical implications introduced by this inequivalence. In ref. zhang2001A , ZH constructed many-body wave functions by using the Slater determinant, and following Laughlin, by taking odd powers of these Slater determinant. They showed that these wave functions describe incompressible quantum liquids. However, one could proceed in a different way here, by constructing wave functions using the inequivalent Jastrow-Laughlin product form. Such a wave function takes the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (i)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (j))^m`$ (8)
where $`m`$ is an odd integer and $`i,j`$ refers to $`i`$th and $`j`$th particles in the system. If we replace $`^{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$, and let $`\alpha ,\beta `$ to take values of $`1,2`$, this would transform exactly into Laughlin’s wave function expressed in Haldane’s sphereical geometryhaldane1983A . Our wave function has the following properties:

1) When $`m`$ is an odd integer, this wave function is antisymmetric when particle coordinates are exchanged. Therefore, this wave function describes a fermionic system.

2) The wave function is a $`SO(5)`$ singlet. This is because every term in the product, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (i)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (j)`$ is a $`SO(5)`$ singlet, by virtue of eq. (4).

Since the wave function involves the $``$ matrix explicitly, the symmetry in the LLL is broken from $`SU(4)`$ down to $`SO(5)`$.

3) When the product is expanded, the spinor coordinate $`\mathrm{\Psi }(i)`$ occurs $`m(N1)`$ times. Therefore, the wave function for the $`i`$th particle takes the form of (1), with $`p=m(N1)`$. ZH showed that single particle level spacing becomes finite in the limit when $`p/R^2=1/l^2`$ is held constant. Therefore, the number of particles in the wave function (8) scales like $`NpR^2`$. In other words, the wave function (8) describes a two dimensional object.

This wave function can be represented graphically. We associate each particle with $`p`$ dots, representing a symmetric spinor state of the form of (1). We draw a solid line representing a contraction between the $`i`$th and the $`j`$th particle through the $``$ matrix. The resulting graphical representation for $`N=4`$, $`m=1,3`$ is depicted in Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b.

4) In order to see what kind of two dimensional object is described by the correlated wave function (8), we borrow from Laughlin’s plasma analogy. $`_idX_idn_i|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|^2`$ can be interpreted as the partition function of a classical gas, living in the six dimensional $`CP_3`$ configuration space. The Boltzmann weight for this classical gas is

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|^2={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }(ij)|^{2m}=e^{m_{i<j}Log|\mathrm{\Phi }(ij)|^2}`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(ij)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (i)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (j)`$. Since the wave function involves only pair-wise correlations, we see that the classical gas interacts via a two-body potential only. $`m`$ can be interpreted as the effective inverse temperature, $`\beta =1/kT`$. Using the tensor identity

$`_{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma \delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \delta }^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \gamma }^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \delta }^{ab}`$ (10)
we obtain the explicit form of the pair-wise potential

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }(ij)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}X_a(i)X_a(j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ab}^\alpha (i)n_\alpha (i)F_{ab}^\beta (j)n_\beta (j)`$ (11)
here $`X_a(i)`$, with $`X_a^2=1`$, describes the coordinate of the $`i`$th particle on the orbital space $`S^4`$, and $`n_\alpha (i)`$, with $`n_\alpha ^2=1`$, describes its coordinate on the isospin space $`S^2`$. $`F_{ab}^\alpha `$ is the Yang-Mills field strength of the $`SU(2)`$ instanton over $`S^4`$, explicitly given by eq. (19) of ref. bernevig2002A .

From the sign of the second terms in eq. (11), we see that the gas particles interact via an attractive interaction on $`S^4`$. This is in direct contrast to Laughlin’s plasma, where the gas particles interact via a repulsive interaction on $`S^2`$. Therefore, at low temperature, our gas particles have a natural tendency to cluster to the same point on $`S^4`$. However, over every point on $`S^4`$, there is also a large, internal isospin $`S^2`$ for the gas particles to “live”. From the sign of the third term in eq. (11), we see that the gas particles repel each other on the isospin $`S^2`$, just like the case of the Laughlin plasma. From these observations, we see that our gas particles cluster to the same point on $`S^4`$, but uniformly fill the isospin $`S^2`$ like a 2D QH liquid. Viewed from the whole $`CP_3`$ point of view, the gas particles form a 2D membrane, wrapped around the isospin sphere $`S^2`$. The center-of-mass of the membrane is a point on $`S^4`$, our wave function consists of an equal weight linear superposition of the center of mass position over $`S^4`$, therefore, the ground state is a $`SO(5)`$ singlet.

Having exhibited the key properties of our wave function and its classical plasma analog, we now present a microscopic quantum interaction Hamiltonian for which it is an exact ground state. Our construction follows closely Haldane’s pseudo-potential formalismhaldane1983A . Since every particle is in the $`(p,0)`$ irreducible representation (irreps) of $`SO(5)`$, the total $`SO(5)`$ quantum number of a pair of particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ is generically given by

$`(p,0){\displaystyle (p,0)}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(k+l,kl)`$ (12)
On the other hand, in our wave function (8), there are already $`m`$ $`SO(5)`$ singlet contractions between the particle $`i`$ and $`j`$. Therefore, the total $`SO(5)`$ quantum number between these two particles in our wave function can only be contained in $`(pm,0)(pm,0)`$. Based on this observation, we introduce the projector Hamiltonian in the LLL as $`H=_{i<j}H_{ij}`$, where

$`H_{ij}={\displaystyle \underset{k=pm+1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}}\lambda (k+l,kl)P_{ij}(k+l,kl)`$ (13)
here $`P_{ij}(k+l,kl)`$ is a projection operator onto the $`SO(5)`$ irreps $`(k+l,kl)`$ between a pair of particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ and $`\lambda (k+l,kl)>0`$ is the interaction parameter in a given channel. This Hamiltonian operates fully within the LLL and is positive definite. Since a pair of particles in our wave function can not have any of the $`SO(5)`$ irreps specified in (13), it is annihilated by all projectors. Therefore, we have proven that our wave function (8) is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian (13) with zero eigenvalue. Since the Hamiltonian is also positive definite, our wave function must therefore be a ground state. Our experience leads us to conjecture that this is also an unique ground state in the spherical geometry.

Having shown the exact ground state wave function (8) of the interacting Hamiltonian (13), we now proceed to discuss the excited states. Following Feynman’s construction of elementary excitations with liquid heliumfeynman1954A , we try to construct variational states of the form:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}F(X_i,n_i)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (14)
where $`F(X)`$ is a single particle wave function over $`S^4`$. In Feynman’s case, he simply took $`F(x)`$ to be plane waves, and his wave function describes the center-of-mass motion of a correlated quantum liquid with finite momentum. In our case, one could use the spherical harmonics over $`S^4`$ for $`F(X)`$:

$`F(X)={\displaystyle \underset{L=l_1,..,l_5}{}}f_LX^L,X^LX_1^{l_1}X_2^{l_2}X_3^{l_3}X_4^{l_4}X_5^{l_5}`$ (15)
Here $`l_1+..+l_5=l`$, and $`f_L`$ is choosen such that $`F`$ belongs to the fully symmetric traceless tensor representation $`(l,l)`$ of the $`SO(5)`$ group. We argued earlier that the membrane wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is a $`SO(5)`$ singlet, which means that the center-of-mass of the membrane has the lowest $`SO(5)`$ angular momentum on $`S^4`$. The more general wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ given in (14) describes higher angular momentum of the center-of-mass on $`S^4`$.

However, there is a serious problem with the function $`F(X)`$. Since $`X_a=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`F(X)`$ depends both on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. But eq. (1) shows that the single particle wave functions in the LLL can only involve $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ but not $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. The solution of this problem is provided by Girvin, MacDonald and Platzmangirvin1986A . One simply needs to use the projection of $`X_a`$ in the LLL, which is

$`X_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}`$ (16)
The effect of $`X_a`$ operating on a $`SO(5)`$ singlet bond formed by $``$ is to turn it into a vector bond $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$. After the projection, $`X_a`$’s become operators and no longer commute with each other, in fact, they satisfy the non-commutative algebra outlined in zhang2001A . As a consequence of the non-commutativity, $`F(X)`$ does not only give the fully symmetric traceless tensor representation $`(l,l)`$ of the $`SO(5)`$ group, but includes all $`SO(5)`$ irreps in the series $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟓}}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟓}}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟓}}\mathrm{}`$ A physical interpretation of this result is that because of the non-commutative geometry in the LLL, the center-of-mass degrees of freedom are coupled to the internal membrane degrees of freedom. A full calculation of the variational energies for the wave function (14), with $`F`$ given by (15) and (16) will be carried out in the future, possibly with the assistance of numerical calculations.

However, even without explicit calculations, we can anticipate the result based on our experience with the 2D QHE. We argued before that the our membrane wrapping the isospin $`S^2`$ is made out of a 2D QH liquid, which has an incompressibility gap. Therefore, it appears likely that our quantum membrane does not have the “spike instability” of a classical membranetaylor2001A , where arbitrarily long spikes can be created at low energies. This picture has important implications on the relativistic edge dynamics of the 4DQH liquid. In the non-interacting problem, the entropy at the edge scale like $`R^3\times R^2=R^5`$, since the internal isospin excitations are gapless. In this work, we have seen that interaction can introduce a high degree of correlation. In the strong coupling limit, there are no free particle excitations, only correlated membrane excitations. Furthermore, the membranes wrap the isospin $`S^2`$ by forming a 2D QH liquid, which has an incompressibility gap. In this case, for energies below the incompressibility gap, the effective entropy at the edge would scale like $`R^3`$. This effect gives a mechanism of “dynamical dimensional reduction”. Different internal membrane excitations appear as different helicity states in the $`3+1`$ dimensional world view. Therefore, higher helicity states would naturally acquire an energy gap, as a result of the interaction and quantum correlations built into the membrane wave function. However, we do not yet know a natural mechanism within our framework to gap only states with helicities greater than three. Nonetheless, we believe that the exact membrane wave function represented in this paper provides a key step towards understanding the strong correlation effects in the 4D QHE model.

We would like to acknowledge useful discussions with A. Bernevig, C. H. Chern, J.P. Hu and N. Toumbas. This work is supported by the NSF under grant numbers DMR-9814289.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the original formulations of string theory , the compactification radius $`R`$ of the extra dimensions and the string mass $`M_s`$ were considered to be set by the 4-dimensional Planck mass $`M_\mathrm{P}=1.9\times 10^{16}`$ TeV. However, recent studies have shown  that conceivable scenarios of stringy nature may exist for which $`R`$ and $`M_s`$ practically decouple from $`M_\mathrm{P}`$. For example, in the model of Ref. , $`M_s`$ may become as low as a few TeV. In this case, $`M_s`$ constitutes the only fundamental scale in nature at which all forces including gravity unify. This low string-scale effective model could be embedded within e.g. type I string theories , where the Standard Model (SM) may be described as an intersection of higher-dimensional $`Dp`$ branes .

As such intersections may be higher dimensional as well, in addition to gravitons the SM gauge fields could also propagate within a higher-dimensional subspace with compact dimensions of order TeV-1 for phenomenological reasons. Since such low string-scale constructions may result in different higher-dimensional extensions of the SM , the actual experimental limits on the compactification radius are, to some extent, model dependent. Nevertheless, most of the derived phenomenological limits in the literature were obtained by assuming that all the SM gauge fields propagate in a common higher-dimensional space .

Here, we wish to lift the above restriction and focus on the phenomenological consequences of models which minimally depart from the assumption of a universal higher-dimensional scenario . Specifically, we will consider 5-dimensional extensions of the SM compactified on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, where the SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge bosons may not both live in the same higher-dimensional space, the so-called bulk. In all our models, the SM fermions are localized on the 4-dimensional subspace, i.e. on a 3-brane or, as it is often called, brane. For each higher-dimensional model, we calculate the effects of the fifth dimension on the electroweak observables and analyze their impact on constraining the compactification scale.

The organization of this brief report is as follows: in Section 2 we introduce the basic concepts of higher-dimensional theories by considering a simple 5-dimensional Abelian model. After briefly discussing how these concepts can be applied to the SM in Section 3, we turn our attention to the phenomenological aspects of the models of our interest in Section 4. Because of the limited space, technical details are omitted in this note. A complete discussion, along with detailed analytic results and references, is given in our paper in . Section 5 summarizes our numerical results and presents our conclusions.

## 2 5-Dimensional Abelian Models

As a starting point, let us consider the Lagrangian of 5-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics (5D-QED) given by

$$(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}(x,y)F^{MN}(x,y)+_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y),$$
(2.1)
where $`F_{MN}`$ denotes the 5-dimensional field strength tensor, and $`_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)`$ is the gauge-fixing term. Our notation is: $`M,N=0,1,2,3,5`$; $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$; $`x=(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})`$; and $`y=x^5`$.

In the absence of the gauge-fixing and ghost terms, the 5D-QED Lagrangian is invariant under U(1) gauge transformations. To compactify the theory on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, we demand for the fields to satisfy equalities like

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_\mu (x,y)& =A_\mu (x,y+2\pi R),\hfill \\ \hfill A_\mu (x,y)& =A_\mu (x,y).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
The field $`A_\mu (x,y)`$ is taken to be even under $`Z_2`$, so as to embed conventional QED with a massless photon into our 5D-QED. Then, the reflection properties of the $`A_5(x,y)`$ field with respect to $`y`$ are dictated by gauge invariance, i.e. $`A_5(x,y)=A_5(x,y)`$.

Given (2.2), we can expand the fields in Fourier series, where the Fourier coefficients, denoted $`A_{(n)}^\mu (x)`$, are the so-called KK modes. Integrating out the $`y`$ dimension we obtain the effective 4-dimensional Lagrangian including massless QED. The other terms describe two infinite towers of massive vector excitations $`A_{(n)}^\mu `$ and (pseudo)-scalar modes $`A_{(n)}^5`$ that mix with each other, for $`n1`$. The scalar modes $`A_{(n)}^5`$ play the rôle of the would-be Goldstone modes in a non-linear realization of an Abelian Higgs model, in which the corresponding Higgs fields are taken to be infinitely massive.

The above observation motivates us to seek for a higher-dimensional generalization of ’t-Hooft’s gauge-fixing condition. We choose the following generalized $`R_\xi `$ gauge :

$$_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\xi }(^\mu A_\mu \xi _5A_5)^2.$$
(2.3)
Upon integration over the extra dimension, all mixing terms disappear and the Lagrangian describes QED accompanied by a tower of massive gauge bosons $`A_{(n)}^\mu `$ and the respective Goldstone modes $`A_{(n)5}`$. The limit $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the usual unitary gauge . Thus, for a simple model, we have seen how starting from a non-covariant higher-dimensional gauge-fixing condition, we can arrive at the known covariant 4-dimensional $`R_\xi `$ gauge after compactification.

This quantization procedure can be successfully applied to theories that include Higgs and gauge bosons living in the bulk and/or on the brane . A brane Higgs induces mixing terms between the Fourier modes. The KK mass eigenstates, found by diagonalizing the mass matrix, have slightly shifted masses and couplings to brane fermions compared to the Fourier modes.

## 3 5-Dimensional Extensions of the Standard Model

The ideas introduced in Section 2 can be generalized for non-Abelian theories. As a new feature, the self-interaction of gauge-bosons in non-Abelian theories leads to self-interactions of the KK modes which are restricted by selection rules reflecting the $`S^1/Z_2`$ structure of the extra dimension.

For spontaneous symmetry-breaking theories, such as the Standard Model (SM), the existence of new compact dimensions opens up several possibilities in connection with the SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}`$U(1)Y gauge structure. For example, the SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge fields do not necessarily need to propagate both in the extra dimension. Such a realization may be encountered within specific stringy frameworks, where one of the gauge groups is effectively confined on the boundaries of the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold .

However, in the most frequently investigated scenario, SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge fields live in the bulk of the extra dimension (bulk-bulk model). In this case, for generality, we will consider a 2-doublet Higgs model, where one Higgs field propagates in the fifth dimension, while the other one is localized. The phenomenology of this model is influenced by the vacuum expectation values $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, or equivalently by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ and $`v^2=v_1^2+v_2^2`$.

An even more minimal 5-dimensional extension of electroweak physics constitutes a model in which only the SU(2)L-sector feels the extra dimension while the U(1)Y gauge field is localized at $`y=0`$ (bulk-brane model). In this case, the Higgs field being charged with respect to both gauge groups has to be localized at $`y=0`$ in order to preserve gauge invariance of the (classical) Lagrangian. For the same reason, a bulk Higgs is forbidden in the third possible model in which SU(2)L is localized while U(1)Y propagates in the fifth dimension (brane-bulk model).

In all these minimal 5-dimensional extensions of the SM we assume that the SM fermions are localized at the $`y=0`$ fixed point of the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold. All the KK modes of a bulk field couple to a brane fermion. Because the KK mass eigenmodes generally differ from the Fourier modes, their couplings to fermions have to be calculated for each model individually.

## 4 Effects on Electroweak Observables

In this section, we will concentrate on the phenomenology and present bounds on the compactification scale $`M=1/R`$ of minimal 5-dimensional extensions of the SM calculated by analyzing a large number of high precision electroweak observables. We relate the SM prediction $`𝒪^{\mathrm{SM}}`$  for an observable to the prediction $`𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ for the same observable obtained in the higher-dimensional SM under investigation through

$$𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}=𝒪^{\mathrm{SM}}\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}\right).$$
(4.1)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ is the tree-level modification of a given observable $`𝒪`$ from its SM value due to the presence of one extra dimension. In order to enable a direct comparison of our predictions with the precision data , we include SM radiative corrections to $`𝒪^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. However, we neglect SM- as well as KK-loop contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ as higher order effects.

As input SM parameters for our theoretical predictions, we choose the most accurately measured ones, namely the $`Z`$-boson mass $`M_Z`$, the electromagnetic fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ and the Fermi constant $`G_F`$. While $`\alpha `$ is not affected in the models under study, $`M_Z`$ and $`G_F`$ generally deviate from their SM form when expressed in terms of couplings and VEV’s. To first order in $`X=\frac{1}{3}\pi ^2m_Z^2R^2`$, $`M_Z`$ and $`G_F`$ may be parameterized as

$$M_Z=M_Z^{\mathrm{SM}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_ZX\right),G_F=G_F^{\mathrm{SM}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_GX\right),$$
(4.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G`$ are model-dependent parameters. For example, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_Z=\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^4\beta ,\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W,\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{\theta }_W\}.$$
(4.3)
for the bulk-bulk, brane-bulk and bulk-brane models, with respect to the SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge groups.

The relation between the weak mixing angle $`\theta _W`$ and the input variables is also affected by the fifth dimension. Hence, it is useful to define an effective mixing angle $`\widehat{\theta }_W`$, which still fulfills the tree-level relation

$$G_F=\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W\mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{\theta }_WM_Z^2}$$
(4.4)
of the Standard Model, and relate it to $`\theta _W`$ by $`\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta X\right)`$.

For the tree-level calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$, it is necessary to consider the mixing effect of the Fourier modes on the masses of the Standard-Model gauge bosons as well as on their couplings to fermions. All the encountered shifts can be expanded in powers of $`X`$ and are calculated to first order. For the precision measurement at the $`Z`$ pole or at lower energies these effects are dominant. For cross sections at LEP2 energies, the dominant higher dimensional contributions stem from the interference of the Standard Model with virtual KK modes which roughly scales like $`s/M^2`$.

Within the framework outlined above, we compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ for an extensive list of precision observables . In addition, we consider fermion-pair production at LEP2 . Employing the results of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ and calculating all the observables considered in our analysis by virtue of (4.1), we confront these predictions with the respective experimental values and calculate the corresponding $`\chi ^2(X)`$ where it is important to include correlations between some of the observables. The bounds on $`X`$ can be derived by requiring $`\chi ^2(X)\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2<n^2`$ for $`X`$ being not excluded at the $`n\sigma `$ confidence level. Here, $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ is the minimal $`\chi ^2`$ in the physical region $`X0`$. Using slightly different definitions for the bounds does not lead to significantly different results.

Table 1 summarizes the lower bounds on the compactification scale $`M=1/R`$ coming from different observables. For the bulk-bulk model we consider the two extreme cases, a pure bulk Higgs and a pure brane Higgs.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

By performing $`\chi ^2`$-tests, we obtain different sensitivities to the compactification radius $`R`$ for the three models under consideration: (i) the SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}`$U(1)Y-bulk model, where all SM gauge bosons are bulk fields; (ii) the SU(2)L-brane, U(1)Y-bulk model, where only the SU(2)L fields are restricted to the brane, and (iii) the SU(2)L-bulk, U(1)Y-brane model, where only the U(1)Y gauge field is confined to the brane. The strongest bounds hold for the often-discussed bulk-bulk model no matter if the Higgs boson is living in the bulk or on the brane. For the bulk-brane models, we observe that the combined bounds on $`1/R`$ are reduced by roughly 20 to 30%.

The lower limits on the compactification scale derived by the present global analysis indicate that resonant production of the first KK state may be at the edge of the LHC reach, at which heavy KK masses up to 6–7 TeV  might be explored. One probably will not be able to probe resonant effects originating from the second KK state, and so more phenomenological work has to be done to differentiate the model from other 4-dimensional new-physics scenaria.

In addition, we have paid special attention to consistently quantize the higher-dimensional models in the generalized $`R_\xi `$ gauges. Specifically, we have been able to identify the appropriate higher-dimensional gauge-fixing conditions which should be imposed on the theories so as to yield the known $`R_\xi `$ gauge after the fifth dimension has been integrated out .

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung and Forschung (BMBF, Bonn, Germany) under the contract number 05HT1WWA2.