text:
# Andreev Reflection in Ferromagnet/Superconductor/Ferromagnet Double Junction Systems

## I Introduction

The spin-dependent transport through magnetic nanostructures has attracted much interest.maekawaBOOK  In the early 1970s, Meservey and Tedrow have showed that tunneling electrons between a ferromagnetic metal (Fe, Co, Ni) and a thin film of superconducting aluminium (Al) are spin-polarized.meservey  The ferromagnet/insulator/superconductor (FM/I/SC) tunnel junctions are one of the most powerful tools to extract the spin polarization of the conduction electrons near the Fermi level. In FM/I/SC and FM/I/SC/I/FM tunnel junctions, the suppression of superconducting gap due to spin accumulation by injection of spin polarized quasiparticles (QP’s) has been shown.vasko ; dong ; yeh ; liu ; chen ; takahashiPRL  The QP’s spin transport and relaxation in SC has been studied in detail. yamashita ; takahashiJMMM ; takahashiHOLL

In recent years, much attention has been focused on FM/SC metallic contacts both theoreticallyde\_jong ; kikuchi ; hima ; zhu ; igor ; kashiwaya  and experimentally soulen ; soulen2 ; ji ; strijkers ; shashi  since the spin polarization of conduction electrons is measured by using the Andreev reflectionandreev : An electron injected from the FM into the SC is reflected as a hole at the FM/SC interface and a Cooper pair is generated in the SC. The Andreev reflection includes a conversion process of the QP current to the supercurrent carried by Cooper pairs in the range of the penetration depth, which is approximately equal to the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) coherence length,GL  from the FM/SC interface.BTK  Thus, a FM/SC/FM double junction is particularly interesting because the magnetoresistance is expected due to the overlap of the QP penetration in the SC by the Andreev reflection. Recently, Gu et al. have measured the magnetoresistance in a current perpendicular to plane (CPP) geometry consisting of a superconducting niobium (Nb) thin film sandwiched by ferromagnetic permalloys (Py) and proposed a method for estimating the penetration depth by measuring the magnetoresistance.gu

In this paper, we present a theory of the Andreev reflection in the FM/SC/FM double junction system and derive an expression of the current through the junction by extending the theory of Blonder, Tinkham and Klapwijk (BTK).BTK  We numerically calculate the current for the parallel and anti-parallel alignments of magnetizations, and investigate the dependences of the magnetoresistance on the thickness of the SC, temperature, the exchange field of FM’s and the height of the interfacial barriers. It is shown that these dependences are understood by considering the penetration of quasiparticles to the SC by the Andreev reflection process. Finally, we compare our results with the recent experimental results by Gu et al..gu

## II Model and Formulation

We consider a FM1/SC/FM2 double junction system consisting of three rectangular blocks as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). The cross section of the system is a square of side $`W`$ and the thickness of the SC is $`L`$. The current flows along the $`z`$-axis and the interfaces between FM1/SC and SC/FM2 are located at $`z=L/2`$ and $`z=L/2`$, respectively. For simplicity, we assume that the system is symmetric: FM1 and FM2 are made of the same ferromagnetic materials and the potentials for the left and right interfaces are the same. The system we consider is described by the following Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equation BdG :

$`(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}H_0h_{ex}(z)\sigma & \mathrm{\Delta }(z)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(z)& H_0h_{ex}(z)\sigma & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array})(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}f_\sigma \left(𝐫\right)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ g_\sigma \left(𝐫\right)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array})=E(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}f_\sigma \left(𝐫\right)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ g_\sigma \left(𝐫\right)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}),`$ (7)
where $`H_0(\mathrm{}^2/2m)^2\mu _F`$ is the single particle Hamiltonian, $`E`$ is the QP energy measured from the Fermi energy $`\mu _F`$ and $`\sigma =+()`$ is for the up-(down-)spin band. The exchange field $`h_{ex}\left(z\right)`$ is given by

$$h_{ex}\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}h_0\hfill & (z<L/2)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (L/2<z<L/2)\hfill \\ \pm h_0\hfill & (L/2<z)\hfill \end{array},$$
(8)
where $`+h_0`$ and $`h_0`$ represent the exchange fields for the parallel and anti-parallel alignments, respectively. The superconducting gap is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& (z<L/2,L/2<z)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }& (L/2<z<L/2)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(9)
We assume that the temperature dependence of the superconducting gap is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{tanh}\left(1.74\sqrt{T_c/T1}\right)`$,belzig  where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the superconducting gap at $`T=0`$ and $`T_c`$ is the superconducting critical temperature. In order to capture the essential effect of the interfacial scattering, we employ the following $`\delta `$-function type potential at the interfaces:

$$H\left(z\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_F}{m}Z\left\{\delta \left(z+L/2\right)+\delta \left(zL/2\right)\right\}.$$
(10)
Throughout this paper, we neglect the spin-flip scattering in the SC and the proximity effect near the interfaces.strijkers

Since the system is rectangular, the wave function in the transverse ($`x`$ and $`y`$) directions is given by

$$\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y)\mathrm{sin}\left(n\pi x/W\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(l\pi y/W\right),$$
(11)
where $`n`$ and $`l`$ are the quantum numbers which define the channel. The eigenvalue of the transverse mode for the channel ($`n`$,$`l`$) is

$`E_{nl}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{W}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\pi }{W}}\right)^2\right].`$ (12)
The solution of the BdG equation (7) in the SC region is given by

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm k_{nl}^+}(𝐫)=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_0\\ v_0\end{array}\right)e^{\pm ik_{nl}^+z}\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm k_{nl}^{}}(𝐫)=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_0\\ u_0\end{array}\right)e^{\pm ik_{nl}^{}z}\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y),\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
where $`u_0`$ and $`v_0`$ are the coherence factors expressed as

$`u_0^2=1v_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{E}}\right],`$ (20)
and $`k_{nl}^{+()}`$ is the $`z`$ component of the wave number of an electron-(hole-)like QP in the channel $`(n,l)`$ defined as

$`k_{nl}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2m}}{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\mu _F\pm \sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}E_{nl}}.`$ (21)
In the FM region, the solutions are given by

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm p_{\sigma ,nl}^+}(𝐫)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)e^{\pm ip_{\sigma ,nl}^+z}\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm p_{\sigma ,nl}^{}}(𝐫)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)e^{\pm ip_{\sigma ,nl}^{}z}\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y),\hfill \end{array}`$ (28)
where $`p_{\sigma ,nl}^{+()}`$ is the $`z`$ component of the wave number of an electron (hole) with $`\sigma `$-spin in the channel $`(n,l)`$;

$`p_{\sigma ,nl}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2m}}{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\mu _F\pm E\pm \sigma h_{ex}E_{nl}}.`$ (29)
The wave function of the FM1/SC/FM2 double junction system is given by the linear combination of the solutions. Let us consider the scattering of an electron with up-spin in the channel $`(n,l)`$ injected into the SC from the FM1 (0 in Fig.2). There are the following eight processes: the Andreev reflection (1 in Fig.2), the normal reflection (2 in Fig.2) at the interface of FM1/SC, the transmission to the SC (3, 4 in Fig.2) and the reflection at the interface of SC/FM2 (5, 6 in Fig.2), the transmission as an electron to the FM2 (7 in Fig.2) and the one as a hole (8 in Fig.2). Therefore, the wave function in the FM1 $`(z<L/2)`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM1}}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`[\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)e^{ip_{\sigma ,nl}^+\left(z+\frac{L}{2}\right)}+a_{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)e^{ip_{\sigma ,nl}^{}\left(z+\frac{L}{2}\right)}`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`b_{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)e^{ip_{\sigma ,nl}^+\left(z+\frac{L}{2}\right)}]\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y).`$ (37)
In the SC $`(L/2<z<L/2)`$ we have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{SC}}(𝐫)=[\alpha _{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_0\\ v_0\end{array}\right)e^{ik_{nl}^+\left(z+\frac{L}{2}\right)}`$ (40)
$`+\beta _{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}v_0\\ u_0\end{array}\right)e^{ik_{nl}^{}\left(z+\frac{L}{2}\right)}+\xi _{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_0\\ v_0\end{array}\right)e^{ik_{nl}^+\left(z\frac{L}{2}\right)}`$ (45)
$`+\eta _{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}v_0\\ u_0\end{array}\right)e^{ik_{nl}^{}\left(z\frac{L}{2}\right)}]\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y),`$ (48)
and in the FM2 $`(L/2<z)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM2}}(𝐫)& =[c_{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)e^{iq_{\sigma ,nl}^+\left(z\frac{L}{2}\right)}\hfill \\ & +d_{\sigma ,nl}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)e^{iq_{\sigma ,nl}^{}\left(z\frac{L}{2}\right)}]\mathrm{S}_{nl}(x,y).\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
Here $`p_{\sigma ,nl}^\pm `$, $`k_{nl}^\pm `$ and $`q_{\sigma ,nl}^\pm `$ are the wave numbers in the FM1, SC and FM2, respectively. The coefficients $`a_{\sigma ,nl},b_{\sigma ,nl},c_{\sigma ,nl},d_{\sigma ,nl},\alpha _{\sigma ,nl},\beta _{\sigma ,nl}`$, $`\xi _{\sigma ,nl}`$, and $`\eta _{\sigma ,nl}`$ are determined by matching the wave functions at the left and right interfaces. The matching conditions for the wave functions (37) - (49) at the interfaces are

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM1}}\left(z=\frac{L}{2}\right)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{SC}}\left(z=\frac{L}{2}\right),\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{SC}}\left(z=\frac{L}{2}\right)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM2}}\left(z=\frac{L}{2}\right),\hfill \\ & \frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{SC}}}{dz}|_{z=\frac{L}{2}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM1}}}{dz}|_{z=\frac{L}{2}}=\frac{2mZ}{\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM1}}\left(z=\frac{L}{2}\right),\hfill \\ & \frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM2}}}{dz}|_{z=\frac{L}{2}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{SC}}}{dz}|_{z=\frac{L}{2}}=\frac{2mZ}{\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\sigma ,nl}^{\mathrm{FM2}}\left(z=\frac{L}{2}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
Solving Eq.(50), the probabilities of transmission and reflection are calculated following the BTK theory. BTK  When an electron with $`\sigma `$-spin is injected from the FM1, the probability of the Andreev reflection $`R_{\sigma ,nl}^{he}`$, the normal reflection $`R_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee}`$ and the transmission as an electron and the one as a hole to the FM2, $`T_{\sigma ,nl}^{e^{}e}`$ and $`T_{\sigma ,nl}^{h^{}e}`$ are given by

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& R_{\sigma ,nl}^{he}\left(E\right)=\frac{p_{\sigma ,nl}^{}}{p_{\sigma ,nl}^+}a_{\sigma ,nl}^{}a_{\sigma ,nl},\hfill \\ & R_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee}\left(E\right)=b_{\sigma ,nl}^{}b_{\sigma ,nl},\hfill \\ & T_{\sigma ,nl}^{e^{}e}\left(E\right)=\frac{q_{\sigma ,nl}^+}{p_{\sigma ,nl}^+}c_{\sigma ,nl}^{}c_{\sigma ,nl},\hfill \\ & T_{\sigma ,nl}^{h^{}e}\left(E\right)=\frac{q_{\sigma ,nl}^{}}{p_{\sigma ,nl}^+}d_{\sigma ,nl}^{}d_{\sigma ,nl},\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
where the subscript $`e^{}(h^{})`$ in Eq. (51) indicates the electron (hole) in the FM2. Let us evaluate the current in the FM1. When the bias voltage $`V`$ is applied to the FM1/SC/FM2 system, the current carried by electrons with $`\sigma `$-spin is written as

$`I_\sigma ^e={\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[f_{}\left(E\right)f_{}\left(E\right)\right]𝑑E,`$ (52)
where $`h`$ is Planck constant and $`f_{}\left(E\right)`$ is the distribution function of an electron with a positive group velocity in the $`z`$ direction and expressed as

$$f_{}\left(E\right)=f_0\left(E\frac{eV}{2}\right),$$
(53)
where $`f_0\left(E\right)`$ is the Fermi distribution function. The distribution function of the electron with a negative group velocity in the $`z`$ direction is written as

$`f_{}\left(E\right)`$
$`=R_{\sigma ,nl}^{eh}f_0\left(E+\frac{eV}{2}\right)+R_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee}f_0\left(E\frac{eV}{2}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{\sigma ,nl}^R𝒟_{\sigma ,nl}^R}{v_{\sigma ,nl}^L𝒟_{\sigma ,nl}^L}}\left[T_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee^{}}f_0\left(E+\frac{eV}{2}\right)+T_{\sigma ,nl}^{eh^{}}f_0\left(E\frac{eV}{2}\right)\right]`$
$`=R_{\sigma ,nl}^{eh}f_0\left(E+\frac{eV}{2}\right)+R_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee}f_0\left(E\frac{eV}{2}\right)`$
$`+T_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee^{}}f_0\left(E+\frac{eV}{2}\right)+T_{\sigma ,nl}^{eh^{}}f_0\left(E\frac{eV}{2}\right),`$ (54)
where $`v_{\sigma ,nl}^{L(R)}`$ is the Fermi velocity of an electron with $`\sigma `$-spin in the channel $`(n,l)`$ of the FM1 (FM2) and $`𝒟_{\sigma ,nl}^{L(R)}`$ is the density of states of $`\sigma `$-spin band in the channel $`(n,l)`$ of the FM1 (FM2). Using the conservation of probability, $`R_{\sigma ,nl}^{eh}+R_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee}+T_{\sigma ,nl}^{ee^{}}+T_{\sigma ,nl}^{eh^{}}=1`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_\sigma ^e& =\frac{e}{h}\underset{nl}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(R_{nl,\sigma }^{eh}+T_{nl,\sigma }^{ee^{}}\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left[f_0\left(E\frac{eV}{2}\right)f_0\left(E+\frac{eV}{2}\right)\right]dE.\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
The current carried by holes $`I_\sigma ^h`$ is calculated in the similar way.

The total current in the FM1/SC/FM2 double junction system is obtained as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I& =\underset{\sigma }{}\left[I_\sigma ^e+I_\sigma ^h\right]\hfill \\ & =\frac{e}{h}\underset{nl,\sigma }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(R_{nl,\sigma }^{eh}+R_{nl,\sigma }^{he}+T_{nl,\sigma }^{ee^{}}+T_{nl,\sigma }^{hh^{}}\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left[f_0\left(E\frac{eV}{2}\right)f_0\left(E+\frac{eV}{2}\right)\right]dE.\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
Note that this expression of the current Eq. (56) reduces to the one derived by Lambertlambert  for the normal metal/superconductor/normal metal system when $`h_0=0`$.

The magnetoresistance (MR) is defined as

$$\mathrm{MR}\frac{R_{\mathrm{AP}}R_\mathrm{P}}{R_\mathrm{P}},$$
(57)
where $`R_{\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{AP})}=V/I_{\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{AP})}`$ is the resistance in the parallel (anti-parallel) alignment.

## III Results

In Fig. 3 the MR is plotted as a function of the thickness of the SC, $`L`$, multiplied by the Fermi wave number $`k_F`$. We assume that the strength of the interfacial barrier $`Z=0`$ and the exchange field $`h_0=0.5\mu _F`$. The side length of the cross section is taken to be $`W=1000/k_F`$ throughout this paper. When the SC is in the normal conducting state ($`T/T_c=1`$), the MR is constant since we neglect the spin-flip scattering in the SC. When the SC is in the superconducting state ($`T/T_c`$ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9), the MR decreases with increasing the thickness of the SC. The MR at low temperatures $`T/T_c1`$ shows an exponential decrease in a wide range of $`k_FL`$. The decrease of the MR due to the superconductivity can be explained by considering the decay of the quasiparticle current in the SC. To obtain the charge and spin currents, we extend the BTK theory of the Andreev reflection BTK  to the FM1/SC/FM2 double junction system.

Let us first consider the charge transport in the SC. When the current flows in the positive $`z`$ direction, electrons and holes are injected into the SC from the FM1 and the FM2, respectively. The conservation law of the charge density $`Q_\sigma =e_{nl}\left(|f_{nl}^\sigma |^2|g_{nl}^\sigma |^2\right)`$ in the SC, where $`f_{nl}^\sigma `$ and $`g_{nl}^\sigma `$ are electron- and hole-like components of the wave function in the channel ($`n,l,\sigma `$), respectively, is derived from the BdG equation (7) and obtained as

$$\frac{Q_\sigma }{t}+𝐉_Q^\sigma =\frac{4e\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}\underset{nl}{}\mathrm{Im}(f_{nl}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}g_{nl}^\sigma ),$$
(58)
where $`𝐉_Q^\sigma `$ is the QP current density with $`\sigma `$-spin and the $`z`$ component of $`𝐉_Q^\sigma `$ per unit area $`j_Q^\sigma `$ is written as

$`j_Q^\sigma (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}}{mW^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle _0^W}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^W}𝑑y`$ (59)
$`\times \mathrm{Im}\left(f_{nl}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}f_{nl}^\sigma +g_{nl}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}g_{nl}^\sigma \right).`$
The right hand side of Eq. (58) corresponds to the gradient of supercurrent carried by Cooper pair $`𝐉_{\mathrm{pair}}^\sigma `$ defined as

$`𝐉_{\mathrm{pair}}^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{4e\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}\mathrm{Im}(f_{nl}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}g_{nl}^\sigma ),`$ (60)
from which the $`z`$ component of $`𝐉_{\mathrm{pair}}^\sigma `$ per area $`j_{\mathrm{pair}}^\sigma `$ is obtained as

$`j_{\mathrm{pair}}^\sigma (z)={\displaystyle \frac{4e\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}W^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle _0^W}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^W}𝑑y`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{L/2}^z}dz^{}\mathrm{Im}(f_{nl}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}g_{nl}^\sigma ).`$ (61)
The $`z`$ coordinate dependences of the QP current density $`j_Q=j_Q^{}+j_Q^{}`$ and the supercurrent $`j_{\mathrm{pair}}=j_{\mathrm{pair}}^{}+j_{\mathrm{pair}}^{}`$ in the case that the thickness of the SC $`L=3000/k_F`$ are shown in Fig. 4(a).

We find that $`j_Q`$ decays from the interfaces of the FM1/SC and the SC/FM2 and becomes zero in the interior of the SC. On the other hand, $`j_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ increases and becomes dominant in the interior of the SC to conserve the total current density. In the energy region below the superconducting gap ($`E<\mathrm{\Delta }`$) where the energy of the transverse mode $`E_{nl}`$ is smaller than Fermi energy $`\mu _F`$, the wave number $`k_{nl}^\pm `$ is expanded as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill k_{nl}^\pm & \frac{\sqrt{2m}}{\mathrm{}}\left(\mu _F\pm i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2E^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill \\ & k_F\pm i\frac{1}{2\xi _Q}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(62)
The imaginary part in Eq. (62) gives the exponential decay term $`\mathrm{exp}(z/\xi _Q)`$ in $`j_Q`$, where $`\xi _Q`$ is the penetration depth given by

$$\xi _Q=\frac{\mathrm{}v_F}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2E^2}},$$
(63)
where $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity. $`\xi _Q`$ has a strong temperature dependence shown in Fig. 5. When the thickness of the SC is much larger than the penetration depth ($`L\xi _Q`$) as in Fig. 4(a), $`j_Q`$ decays in the range of $`\xi _Q`$ from the interfaces. Note that $`\xi _Q`$ is approximately equal to the clean-limit GL coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ in the low energy regime: $`\xi _Q(E=0)1.2\xi (T)`$.BTK

Next, we consider the spin transport in the SC. The conservation law of the spin density $`S=P_{}P_{}`$, where $`P_\sigma =_{nl}(|f_{nl}^\sigma |^2+|g_{nl}^\sigma |^2)`$, is derived from the BdG equation (7) and expressed as

$$\frac{S}{t}+𝐉_{\mathrm{spin}}=0,$$
(64)
where $`𝐉_{\mathrm{spin}}=𝐉_P^{}𝐉_P^{}`$ is the spin current density. The $`z`$ component of $`𝐉_P^\sigma `$ per unit area $`j_P^\sigma `$ is written as

$`j_P^\sigma (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{mW^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle _0^W}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^W}𝑑y`$ (65)
$`\times \mathrm{Im}\left(f_{nl}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}f_{nl}^\sigma g_{nl}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}g_{nl}^\sigma \right).`$
Figure 4(b) shows the $`z`$ coordinate dependence of the spin current density $`j_{\mathrm{spin}}=j_P^{}j_P^{}`$ in the SC with the thickness $`L=3000/k_F`$. As shown in Fig. 4(b), no spin current flows through the SC both in the parallel and in the anti-parallel alignments because the QP current with spin changes to the supercurrent carried by Cooper pairs with no spin. This means that the spin injected from FM1 does not reach to the FM2. As a result, the QP current density in the parallel alignment $`j_Q^\mathrm{P}`$ and that in the anti-parallel alignment $`j_Q^{\mathrm{AP}}`$ are almost the same as shown in Fig. 4(a).

The $`z`$ coordinate dependence of the charge current in the case that the thickness of the SC is much smaller than the penetration depth ($`L\xi _Q`$) is shown in Fig. 6(a), where the QP current density $`j_Q`$ is almost constant and the supercurrent density $`j_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ is nearly zero in the SC. As shown in Fig. 6(b), the value of the spin current in the parallel alignment is larger than that in the anti-parallel alignment because the value of QP current with up-spin is much larger than that with down-spin in the parallel alignment, whereas the value of QP current with up-spin is equal to that with down-spin in the anti-parallel alignment. This means that the spin injected from the FM1 is transferred to the FM2 and therefore the value of the QP current density strongly depends on the relative orientation of the FM’s magnetizations shown in Fig. 6(a).

From the above discussion, the result shown in Fig. 3 is understood as follows. In the SC, the QP current with spin decreases exponentially and changes to the supercurrent carried by Cooper pairs with no spin in the range of $`\xi _Q`$ from the interfaces. As a result, it becomes difficult to transfer the spin from the FM1 to the FM2 and the MR decreases with increasing the thickness of the SC. The finite MR in the region of large $`L`$ is due to the QP’s with energy above the superconducting gap ($`E>\mathrm{\Delta }`$).

The temperature dependences of the MR normalized by the value at $`T_c`$ ($`\mathrm{MR}_{\mathrm{norm}}`$) for several values of the exchange field $`h_0`$ in the case of $`L=3000/k_F`$ and $`L=300/k_F`$ are shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), respectively. The $`\mathrm{MR}_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ decreases with decreasing temperature because the number of electrons and holes with the energy $`E>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which contribute to the $`\mathrm{MR}_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ decreases with decreasing temperature. At low temperatures, electrons and holes mainly distribute in the energy region $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. When the thickness of the SC is much larger than the penetration depth (Fig. 7(a)), electrons and holes with energy $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ injected to the SC do not contribute to the $`\mathrm{MR}_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ because the QP current changes to the supercurrent in the SC by the Andreev reflection and the QP transmission from the FM1 to the FM2 does not occur. As a result, the $`\mathrm{MR}_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ becomes zero at low temperatures $`T/T_c0.4`$. On the other hand, when the thickness of the SC is comparable to the penetration depth (Fig. 7(b)), the QP transmission by the Andreev reflection in the energy region $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ occurs and therefore the finite $`\mathrm{MR}_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ remains even at low temperatures.

Figures 8(a)-(c) show the temperature dependence of the MR in the cases of $`Z=0`$, $`1`$ and $`3`$, respectively, for the several values of $`L`$. The temperature dependence of the MR in the case of the transparent interfacial barrier (Fig. 8(a)) is explained by the same way as in Fig. 7. In the case of the finite interfacial barrier (Figs. 8(b) and 8(c)), for all values of $`L`$, the normal reflection mainly occurs especially in the energy region below the superconducting gap ($`E<\mathrm{\Delta }`$) because of the scattering at the interfaces. Therefore, the main contribution to the MR at temperature $`0.3T/T_c1`$ comes from the QP’s transmission in the energy region $`E>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, whose probability is independent of $`L`$. As a result, the differences in the magnitude of the MR for the different values of $`L`$ become smaller especially for temperature $`0.3T/T_c1`$.

## IV Comparison with experiment

Let us compare our theory with recent experimental results in Py/Nb/Py structures measured by Gu et al..gu  The mean free path in the Nb film $`l6`$ nmgu  is much smaller than the clean-limit coherence length $`\xi _040`$ nmTinkham  and therefore the Nb film is in the diffusive regime. In order to analyze the experimental results in the dirty Nb film, we need to extend the theory in the ballistic case to that in the diffusive case. The diffusive effect on the Andreev reflection is incorporated into our theory by replacing the penetration depth $`\xi _Q`$ in the ballistic theory with the penetration depth in the dirty-limit $`\xi _Q^D`$. Thus, the value of $`\xi _Q(E=0)`$ at $`T=0`$ obtained by fitting the experimental data is interpreted as the dirty-limit penetration depth $`\xi _Q^D(E=0)1.2\sqrt{l/\xi _0}\xi _Q(E=0)`$xiQD  at $`T=0`$. Figure 9 shows the excess resistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=R_{\mathrm{AP}}R_\mathrm{P}`$ normalized by the value at (in the experiment, $`T`$ slightly above) $`T_c`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{norm}}`$) as a function of temperature. The solid curves indicate the calculated results and the symbols indicate the experimental ones.gu  By fitting the calculated values to those of the experimental data, we obtain $`\xi _Q^D(E=T=0)`$ = 46, 36, 36, 33, 30, and 27 nm for the curves of $`L`$=30, 40, 50, 60, 80, and 100 nm, respectively, where $`k_F`$ is taken to be $`1\text{Å}^1`$ for Nb.ashcroft  The values of the penetration depth $`\xi _Q^D(E=T=0)`$ estimated by our theory become larger for the smaller thickness of the Nb film and are larger than the dirty-limit penetration depth in a bulk Nb $`\sqrt{\xi _0l}`$ = 16.2 nm. This indicates that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the Nb film is reduced compared to that in a bulk Nb. The suppression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is due to the proximity effect. Actually, the height of the realistic superconducting gap depends on the position $`z`$ in the Nb film by the proximity effect. Here we interpret the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the averaged value of the realistic superconducting gap with respect to $`z`$ in the Nb film. Gu et al. have obtained the dirty-limit penetration depth $`\xi _Q^D(E=T=0)16.5`$ nm by assuming that $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(t_{Nb}/\xi _Q^D)`$, where $`t_{Nb}`$ is the thickness of the Nb. This value of the penetration depth is comparable to those estimated by our theory.

Although we neglect the effect of spin relaxation on the MR in our theory, this assumption is justified as follows. In the Nb film in the Py/Nb/Py structure, the spin diffusion length $`\lambda _s`$ is about $`50`$ nm,gu  while the penetration depth $`\xi _Q(T=0)`$ is about $`2746`$ nm at low energy. As seen in Fig. 5, $`\xi _Q(T)`$ is almost constant at low temperatures and shows the divergent behavior only near $`T_c`$, indicating that $`\xi _Q`$ is smaller than $`\lambda _s`$ in most of the temperature range below $`T_c`$. Therefore, the effect of the QP current penetration is dominated for the MR and the spin relaxation effect on the MR is neglected except in the close vicinity to $`T=T_c`$.

## V Conclusion

The magnetoresistance in the ferromagnet/superconductor/ferromagnet double junction system is studied theoretically. The dependences of the magnetoresistance on the thickness of the superconductor, temperature, the exchange field of ferromagnets and the height of the interfacial barriers are understood by considering the Andreev reflection of spin-polarized current. Our theory shows good agreement with recent experimental results.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank W. P. Pratt, Jr. for informing them their experimental data prior to publication. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid from MEXT and CREST of Japan. H. I. is supported by Encouragement of Young Scientists for MEXT.


format: text

text:
# Detection of Two Binary Trans-Neptunian Objects, 1997 CQ29 and 2000 CF105, with the Hubble Space Telescope

## 1 Introduction

The first trans-Neptunian binary (TNB) was identified in 1978 with the discovery of Charon, Pluto’s moon (Christy and Harrington 1978). The first binary Kuiper-belt object, 1998 WW31, was announced in 2001 (Veillet 2001), though it has since been identified in images taken as early as November 1998 (Veillet et al. 2002). More discoveries have followed in rapid succession (Table 1) so that, as of February 2002, a total of six trans-Neptunian binaries were known.

The discovery of TNBs opens up a significant new tool for physical study of trans-Neptunian objects (TNO). Through analysis of the orbit, it offers the only direct means of determining the mass of these distant objects for the forseeable future. When combined with optical and thermal wavelength photometry, density can also be determined. Both mass and density have a priori uncertainties of at least an order of magnitude for TNOs, so the value of direct observations cannot be underestimated.

Binaries offer further opportunities for physical study through mutual occultations. The series of Pluto-Charon mutual events that occurred soon after the discovery of Charon led to surface albedo maps and separate spectra, revealing the very distinct surface compositions of Pluto and its satellite (Buie et al. 1987, Fink & DiSanti 1988, Buie et al. 1992, Young et al. 1999). Veillet et al. (2002) suggest that 1998 WW31 will begin a series of mutual events in approximately 50 years. TNOs have periods of 250 years or more so it will be necessary to discover and determine the orbits of approximately 10 TNBs before it will be likely to find one having mutual occultations within the next decade.

Two TNOs, 1997 CQ29 and 2000 CF105, are the focus of this work. 1997 CQ29 was discovered at Mauna Kea Observatory by Chen et al. (1997) and 2000 CF105 was discovered at Kitt Peak National Observatory by the Deep Ecliptic Survey team (Millis, et al. 2002). Both objects are classical TNOs in orbits of small eccentricity and low inclination. In this paper we describe the discovery of binary companions to 1997 CQ29 and 2000 CF105, making them the seventh and eighth known TNBs (Noll and Stephens 2002, Noll et al. 2002).

## 2 Observations

1997 CQ29 and 2000 CF105 were observed as part of a large photometric survey of TNOs that we are carrying out using the Hubble Space Telescope. The data were dark-subtracted, flat-fielded, and flux calibrated using standard STScI on-the-fly pipeline calibration steps including up-to-date dark files. Cosmic ray hits were removed by combining pairs of filtered observations with the standard CRREJ routine found in the STSDAS IRAF software package (Baggett et al. 2002).

We used the WFALL aperture, centered at pixel 133, 149 on the WF3 chip (Biretta et al. 2001), for all observations in our photometric survey. This is the corner of the WF3 chip nearest the x and y readout registers, a position that reduces the magnitude of the charge transfer efficiency correction required (Whitmore et al. 1999, Dolphin 2000). The WFALL aperture was also chosen to increase the likelihood of finding objects with uncertain ephemeris positions. The telescope was tracked during all observations correcting both for the proper motion of the TNO and the parallax induced by Hubble’s orbital motion.

In followup observations of 1997 CQ29 we placed the target on the PC chip to take advantage of the better sampling on that detector. As with the other observations, the telescope was tracked at the apparent rate of the TNO.

### 2.1 1997 CQ29

1997 CQ29 was first imaged by us from 6:44 to 7:22 UT on 17 November 2001 when it was at a distance of 41.85 AU from the Earth. We obtained images with the WFPC2 camera on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in three broad band filters approximating V (F555W), R (F675W), and I (F814W) bands. There were two 160 second exposures in each filter. The sequence started with a single F555W exposure, followed by two each in F675W and F814W, and ended with a second single F555W.

We identified 1997 CQ29 in our images both by its lack of motion relative to tracking and by its position at 66,92 on the WF3 chip, 8.76 arcsec from the predicted position. Stars and galaxies in the field moved by a total of 0.46 arcsec between the first and last exposure.

As shown in figure 1, the image of 1997 CQ29 is clearly elongated. The orientation of the spacecraft was such that north is approximately 30 degrees from the vertical in our images as indicated by the long arrow. The axis of the elongation is rotated by 16$`\pm `$4 degrees east of north relative to the brighter of the two components, component $`A`$. The elongation appears in all six individual images at a similar angle and separation. We note that the direction of the elongation is almost perpendicular to the apparent motion of stars and galaxies which moved diagonally from east to west in the images as shown. We also examined engineering data that tracks jitter during the observations. No unusual jitter was seen, ruling this out as a possible source of error. Based on this visual evidence, we concluded that 1997 CQ29 is a probable binary and proceeded to obtain confirming images.

Three additional sets of observations of 1997 CQ29 were made from 7:30 to 8:26 UT on 18 June 2002, 3:09 to 4:05 UT on 30 June 2002, and 3:39-4:35 UT on 12 July 2002. On each date we obtained three 800 second exposures in the F814W filter with the 1997 CQ29 on the PC chip. In all three cases the binary was easily detected and clearly resolved, as shown in figure 1. The higher resolution of the PC, the better S/N resulting from longer integrations, and obvious presence of the two components on four separate dates leaves no doubt about the binarity of 1997 CQ29.

### 2.2 2000 CF105

2000 CF105 was observed in two filters, the F555W and F814W, on 12 January 2002 from 1:12 to 1:49 UT. As with 1997 CQ29, the observing sequence began and ended with an F555W exposure. A pair of F814W exposures occurred between the F555Ws. Because 2000 CF105 is fainter, we exposed this object in only two filters with two 260 second exposures per filter.

The brighter component of 2000 CF105, component $`A`$, was found 0.58 arcsec from the WFALL aperture at pixel 133,155. A second, fainter object, component $`B`$, can be seen to the east in figure 2 at pixel 138, 161. 2000 CF105 $`A`$ and $`B`$ were stationary during the observations. Stars and galaxies were trailed, moving a total of 1.1 arcsec from the first to last exposure. As shown in figure 2, the two components of 2000 CF105 are cleanly separated by an angular distance of 0.78$`\pm `$0.03 arcsec at a position angle of 106.6$`\pm `$2.5 degrees measured from $`A`$.

2000 CF105 was subsequently observed from the Keck I telescope (Fig. 3, Romanishin et al. 2002). On the night of 11 April 2002 (UT) 2000 CF105 was observed in four ten-minute integrations simultaneously in B and R bands using the LRIS instrument in imaging mode. The images were individually bias-subtracted and flat-fielded and then combined into a single image. For the combined image shown in figure 3, the individual exposures were shifted to align the images of 2000 CF105 which was moving at -0.235 arcsec/hr in RA and 0.00 arcsec/hr in dec. As can be seen in figure 3, 2000 CF105 appears elongated in the east-west direction with the fainter component to the east. Romanishin et al. report a separation of 0.8$`\pm `$0.2 arcsec at a position angle of 103$`\pm `$5 degrees. This matches the orientation seen in the WFPC2 image and confirms the presence of the companion.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 1997 CQ29

In order to determine the separation and to obtain separate photometric magnitudes for the two components of 1997 CQ29 in the November data we fit the observed image by iteratively combining scaled synthetic point-spread functions (PSF) generated by the TinyTim software tool (Krist et al. 1997). An example is shown in figure 4. Both the separation and the relative magnitude of the components were allowed to vary. After finding a preliminary fit, we repeated the procedure over a finer grid. A best fit was determined by finding the parameters that yielded a minimum in the least squares residuals between the model and observed data. Errors were estimated from the residuals.

From the iterative fit we determined a mean separation of 0.20$`\pm `$0.03 arcsec on 17 November 2001. We note that this is 0.04 arcsec larger than reported by Noll & Stephens (2002) because the separation of the PSF centers is slightly larger than the separation of the peaks in the brightness distribution. This separation is near the resolution limit of the wide field portion of WFPC2 where the pixel scale is 0.1 arcsec/pixel, though it is sufficiently large that the two components can be reliably resolved. We applied the same technique to determine separations in the June/July 2002 data, even though the objects are clearly resolved and separate. Positional information is summarized in Table 2.

Magnitudes are converted to the standard Johnson-Cousins system using the SYNPHOT software package. Details of our photometric pipeline are described in more detail in a forthcoming paper. We measure a Johnson V magnitude of V = 23.78$`\pm `$0.13 and Cousins R and I magnitudes of R = 23.27$`\pm `$0.19, I = 22.54$`\pm `$0.09 for the component $`A`$. Component $`B`$ was found to have V = 24.02$`\pm `$0.22, R = 23.54$`\pm `$0.23, and I = 23.06$`\pm `$0.18 (Table 3). The photometry we obtained in June/July 2002 is generally consistent with the I band magnitudes determined in November 2001 as detailed in Table 3.

The one exception is the unusually faint magnitude recorded for the component $`A`$ on 18 June 2002. The faintness initially caused us to misidentify the components in this image, but when combined with the other images and possible mutual orbits, it is clear that on 18 June 1997 CQ29$`A`$ is almost a full magnitude fainter than on the other three dates when we measured it. Note, in particular, that the observations in June and July 2002 were each separated by approximately 12 days. This is far shorter than any plausible period for the binary as discussed below. And there is essentially no change between the 30 June and 12 July magnitudes for either component. Finally, the measured magnitude of component $`B`$ is almost identical in all four observations. It is possible that the unusually low measured magnitude for component $`A`$ is due to some unrecognized observational error. It is also possible that 1997 CQ29$`A`$ has an intrinsic lightcurve with a large amplitude. Further observations to set limits on lightcurves would be valuable.

The discovery of binaries is valuable because it offers the possibility of determining the mass and density of the objects, basic physical parameters that would otherwise require spacecraft to measure. We have not yet determined the orbits for either of the binaries that we have detected. It is possible, however, to make estimates of diameter and mass by making assumptions about the albedo and density of the objects and using measured magnitudes. If we assume an albedo of q=0.04 as is customarily done for TNOs, we find that the two components of 1997 CQ29 have diameters of d(A)=220 km and d(B)=200 km following the formalism of Romanishin and Tegler (1999). If we further assume a bulk density of 1 g cm-3, we calculate a combined mass of 9.76$`\times 10^{21}`$ g, or 1/1500th the mass of Pluto and Charon. It is also possible to make educated guesses about possible orbital periods as we discuss separately below.

### 3.2 2000 CF105

On January 12, 2002, 2000 CF105 was 41.30 AU from the Earth. At this distance, the angular separation we observed, 0.78 arcsec, corresponds to a minimum separation of 23,360 km. Because of the wide separation, we were able to measure individual magnitudes for each component of the binary with standard aperture photometry using the IRAF PHOT routine. We used an aperture radius of 3 pixels and a background annulus with inner diameter of 20 pixels and a thickness of 20 pixels. An aperture correction factor was calculated using synthetic PSFs. We determined V = 24.25$`\pm `$ 0.11 and I = 22.99$`\pm `$ 0.08 for the brighter component $`A`$ and V = 25.12$`\pm `$ 0.24 and I = 23.55$`\pm `$ 0.13 for the component $`B`$ (Table 3). The uncertainties are relatively large, especially for the fainter component $`B`$, because of the faintness of these objects. 2000 CF105$`A`$ is one of the faintest TNOs we have observed and the 2000 CF105$`B`$ is more than a magnitude fainter than the nominal magnitude limit we used for target selection. Significantly fainter companions would not be detected by our relatively short integrations.

Romanishin et al. (2002) report that the two components of 2000 CF105 differ by 0.6$`\pm `$0.2 mags in the R band, consistent with HST relative photometry. Absolute photometry with the Keck data has not been reported.

Using the same procedure as we did for 1997 CQ29, we estimate diameters for the two components to be d($`A`$)=170 km and d($`B`$)=120 km for an albedo of 0.04. Assuming a density of $`\rho `$ = 1 g cm-3 we find a combined mass of 3.48$`\times 10^{21}`$g, 4200 times less than Pluto and Charon.

### 3.3 Orbits

It is possible to estimate the period of TNBs using Kepler’s third law by making an assumption about the semimajor axis and eccentricity of the orbit. This exercise is necessary in order to plan followup observations and is also useful as a yardstick for comparison with the actual orbit once it is known. We note that of the two TNBs with measured orbits, one, Pluto/Charon is nearly circular, while the other, 1998 WW31 has an eccentricity of e=0.8 (Veillet et al. 2002).

For our initial guess we assumed that e=0 and that the observed separation in November 2001, a=6070 km, is the semimajor axis. For this set of assumptions we derive an orbital period of 42.6 days. We used this value to plan our followup observations in June and July 2002. The separation we observed in June/July 2002 was larger, an average of 10,200 km. Using the same assumptions, this would yield a period of 92 days.

The four epochs of observation allow us to determine some basic facts about the orbit of 1997 CQ29. As can be seen in Table 2, on the dates in June and July 2002, each separated by approximately 12 days, the position angle measured from component $`A`$ to $`B`$ increases steadily. The average rate over the nearly 24 days from 18 June to 12 July 2002 is 0.281 degrees/day. However, the average rate from 17 November to 18 June, a period of 212.85 days, must be significantly higher, averaging 1.494 degrees/day. We have insufficient data to resolve these discrepant rates. It is apparent, however, that the orbital plane is inclined relative to our line of sight and/or the orbit is significantly eccentric. Additional observations will be required to determine the orbit of 1997 CQ29.

If we perform the same exercise for 2000 CF105 we find an orbital period for a circular orbit would be 539 days, comparable to the 547 day period of 1998 WW31 (Veillet et al. 2002) and significantly longer than the apparent period of 1997 CQ29. The similarity of position angles observed in January and April 2002 is consistent with a long period, though the uncertainties are sufficiently large that nothing more quantitative can be said.

### 3.4 Colors

The V-I color index can be computed for each binary component from the measured V and I photometry. Color can, in principle, be used to infer the surface composition and resurfacing history of TNOs (c.f. Jewitt & Luu 2001). In the 75 objects surveyed by us, V-I ranges from 0.8 to 1.6, which is to be compared to V-I(Sun)=0.71. That is, TNO colors range from neutral to extremely red, as has been noted before (Luu & Jewitt 1996).

The colors of 1997 CQ29 and 2000 CF105 are listed in Table 3. The brighter $`A`$ components of both binaries have colors, V-I $``$ 1.25, that are average for classical TNOs observed in our survey. Their companions differ by about 1-sigma, more neutral in the case of 1997 CQ29$`B`$ and redder in the case of 2000 CF105$`B`$. Unfortunately, the uncertainties in the colors are sufficiently large that we cannot reach conclusions beyond stating that 2000 CF105$`B`$ is unlikely to have neutral colors while 1997 CQ29$`B`$ is not significantly more red than 1997 CQ29$`A`$. Future observations that reduce the photometric uncertainties will be required to reach stronger conclusions.

### 3.5 Frequency of Binaries

We have observed 75 TNOs so far in our photometric survey using HST and have examined all of these for possible binary companions. Of those 75, we have detected companions to 3, 1997 CQ29, 2000 CF105, and the previously known binary 1998 WW31. This statistic applies to companions with separations greater than $``$0.15 arcsec and V-band differences of less than $``$1 mag. Although 1998 WW31 was identified as a binary prior to its inclusion in our target list, the magnitude of 1998 WW31 and the precision of its orbit determination matched the criteria for inclusion and it would have been added even if the binary were not known. Also, the order in which snapshot targets are scheduled is random and outside the control of the observers. The probablility that 1998 WW31 would have been observed at this point in our observing program is approximately 50%. Given these considerations, we believe it is proper to consider 1998 WW31 as part of an unbiased sample. We then conclude that the frequency of binaries consistent with the limits above is simply 3/75 or $`4\pm 2`$%. We note that, because of the large statistical uncertainty, the exclusion of 1998 WW31 from the sample would not alter this conclusion substantially.

A frequency of $`4\pm 2`$% is in marginal agreement with the detection of 8 TNBs out of a total of more than 500 TNOs detected to date. However, the uneven sampling and data quality of this larger population complicates any statistical conclusions from this larger sample. Many of the objects have been observed only a few times and some are effectively lost. Many of the detected binaries, 1997 CQ29 for example, could not be detected by most ground-based systems including those equipped with adaptive optics. 2000 CF105 is just detectable with ground-based systems, and indeed has been verified as binary from the ground (Romanishin & Tegler et al. 2002). Furthermore, the magnitude limit and angular resolution in individual observations of TNOs is a strong function of equipment and observing conditions. Nevertheless, the overall detection rate of $`1.5\pm 0.5`$% supports the rate inferred from our more uniform survey.

It is worth noting that half of known TNBs, four of eight, have been discovered with HST (Trujillo and Brown 2002, Brown and Trujillo 2002, Noll and Stephens 2002, Noll et al. 2002). Since far more observations of TNOs are made by groundbased telescopes than by HST, this fact would appear to imply that TNBs separated by more than an arcsecond are less frequent than more closely spaced companions, an assertion borne out by Table 1 when one considers that 1 arcsec at 40 AU is a physical distance of 29,000 km.

We also note that all three of the binaries detected by us and five of the eight objects in Table 1 are classical TNOs. Two are in the 3:2 resonance and one is possibly a scattered object. Of the 75 objects observed in our program so far, 65% are classical TNOs with low eccentricity and inclination, 24% are plutinos, and 11% are scattered disk objects. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence at present to make any conclusions about the relative frequency of binaries in the different dynamical populations, though eventually this information may be useful in determining the origin and history of TNBs and the dynamical classes in the Kuiper Belt.

Finally, it is worthwhile to make a comparison between TNBs and binaries found in the main belt and near-Earth populations. A total of 6 binaries have been identified out of a sample of 300 main-belt targets by Merline et al. (2001), a rate, at first glance, roughly similar to that being found in the Kuiper Belt. However, it must be noted that the relative sizes and separations of main belt and Kuiper belt binaries appear to be significantly different (Margot 2002). If a population of TNBs with faint and close-in companions, similar to the main belt binaries, exists, the fraction of TNBs could be significantly higher than our current estimate. If collisions are the main source of binaries in both populations, the frequency of binaries, and their orbital and size distribution can be used to probe the efficiency of binary formation from such events. The near-Earth asteroid (NEA) population has a higher frequency of binaries, as high as 16% for objects over 200 m in diameter (Margot et al. 2002). However, mechanisms other than collisions, e.g. tidal breakup, may be responsible for this larger number among the NEAs and this population may be less relevant for comparison to TNBs.

References

LABEL:Baggett,\_S.\_et\_al.\_2002,\_in\_HST\_WFPC2\_Data\_Handbook,\_ed.\_B.~Mobasher,\_Baltimore,\_STScI

LABEL:Biretta,\_J.,\_et\_al.\_2001,\_WFPC2\_Instrument\_Handbook,\_Baltimore,\_STScI

LABEL:Brown,\_M.~E.\_&\_Trujillo,\_C.~A.\_2002,\_IAUC\_7807

LABEL:Buie,\_M.~W.,\_Cruikshank,\_D.~P.,\_Lebofsky,\_L.~A.,\_&\_Tedesco,\_E.~F.\_1987\_Nature\_329,\_522

LABEL:Buie,\_M.~W.,\_Tholen,\_D.~J.,\_&\_Horne,\_K.\_1992,\_Icarus\_97,\_211

LABEL:Chen,\_J.,\_Trujillo,\_C.,\_Luu,\_J.,\_Jewitt,\_D.,\_Kavelaars,\_J.~J.,\_Gladman,\_B.,\_&\_Brown,\_W.\_1997\_MPEC\_1997-J02

LABEL:Christy,\_J.~W.\_&\_Harrington,\_R.~S.\_1978,\_AJ\_83,\_1005

LABEL:Dolphin,\_A.\_2000,\_PASP\_112,\_1397

LABEL:Eliot,\_J.~L.\_2001,\_IAUC\_7733

LABEL:Fink,\_U.\_&\_DiSanti,\_M.\_1988,\_AJ\_95,\_229

LABEL:Jewitt,\_D.\_&\_Luu,\_J.\_2001,\_AJ\_122,\_2099

LABEL:Kavelaars,\_J.~J.,\_Petit,\_J.-M.,\_Gladman,\_B.,\_&\_Holman,\_M.\_2001,\_IAUC\_7749

LABEL:Krist,\_J.~E.\_&\_Hook,\_R.\_1997,\_TinyTim\_User's\_Manual,\_v.4.4,\_Space\_Telescope\_Science\_Institute:\_Baltimore

LABEL:Luu,\_J.,\_&\_Jewitt,\_D.\_1996,\_AJ\_112,\_2310

LABEL:Margot,\_J.~L.\_2002,\_Nature\_416,\_694

LABEL:Margot,\_J.~L.,\_Nolan,\_M.~C.,\_Benner,\_L.~A.~M.,\_Ostro,\_S.~J.,\_Giorgini,\_J.~D.,\_Slade,\_M.~A.,\_&\_Campbell,\_D.~B.\_Science\_Online,\_April\_11,\_2002

LABEL:Merline,\_W.~J.,\_Close,\_L.~M.,\_Menard,\_F.,\_Dumas,\_C.,\_Chapman,\_C.~R.,\_Slater,\_D.~C.\_2001,\_BAAS\_33,\_#52.01

LABEL:Millis,\_R.~L.,\_Buie,\_M.~W.,\_Wasserman,\_L.~H.,\_Elliot,\_J.~L.,\_Kern,\_S.~D.,\_and\_Wagner,\_R.M.\_2002,\_AJ\_123,\_2083

LABEL:Noll,\_K.\_&\_Stephens,\_D.\_2002,\_IAUC\_7824

LABEL:Noll,\_K.,\_Stephens,\_D.,\_Grundy,\_W.,\_Spencer,\_J.,\_Millis,\_R.,\_Buie,\_M.,\_Cruikshank,\_D.,\_Tegler,\_S.,\_&\_Romanishin,\_W.\_2002b,\_IAUC\_7857

LABEL:Romanishin,\_W.\_&\_Tegler,\_S.~C.\_1999,\_Nature\_398,\_129

LABEL:Romanishin,\_W.,\_Tegler,\_S.,\_Noll,\_K.\_Stephens,\_D,\_Grundy,\_W.,\_Spencer,\_J.,\_Millis,\_R.,\_Buie,\_M.,\_&\_Cruikshank,\_D.\_2002,\_IAUC\_7962

LABEL:Trujillo,\_C.~A.,\_&\_Brown,\_M.~E.\_2002,\_IAUC\_7787

LABEL:Whitmore,\_B.,\_Heyer,\_I.,\_&\_Casertano,\_S.\_1999,\_PASP\_111,\_1559

LABEL:Veillet,\_C.\_2001,\_IAUC\_7610

LABEL:Veillet,\_C.,\_Parker,\_J.~W.,\_Griffin,\_I.,\_Marsden,\_B.,\_Doressoundiram,\_A.,\_Buie,\_M.,\_Tholen,\_D.~J.,\_Connelley,\_M.,\_&\_Holman,\_M.~J.\_2002\_Nature

LABEL:Young,\_E.~F.,\_Galdamez,\_K.,\_Buie,\_M.~W.,\_Binzel,\_R.~P.,\_&\_Tholen,\_D.~J.\_1999,\_AJ\_117,\_1063

| Table 1: Trans-Neptunian Binaries | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
 | | | | |
| object | dynamical | separation | $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ m | reference |
|  | class | (km) |  |  |
|  | | | | |
| Pluto/Charon | plutino | 19,366 | 1.4 | Christy & Harrington (1978) |
| 1998 WW31 | classical | 22,300 | 0.4 | Veillet (2001) |
| 2001 QT297 | classical | 19,000 | 0.55 | Elliot (2001) |
| 2001 QW322 | classical | 126,000 | 0 | Kavelaars et al. (2001) |
| 1999 TC36 | plutino | 8,300 | 1.9 | Trujillo & Brown (2002) |
| 1998 SM165 | scattered | 5,600 | 1.9 | Brown & Trujillo (2002) |
| 1997 CQ29 | classical | 8,100 | 0.24 | Noll & Stephens (2002) |
| 2000 CF105 | classical | 23,360 | 0.87 | Noll et al. (2002) |
|  | | | | |
| Semi-major axis listed for Pluto/Charon and 1998 WW31. | | | | |
| For other objects, mean separation at time of observations is listed. | | | | |

| Table 2: Positional Data | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
 | | | |
| date | object | separation | position angle |
|  | | | |
| 2001 Nov 17.29 | 1997 CQ29 | 0.20$`\pm `$0.03 | 16$`\pm `$4 |
| 2002 Jun 18.33 |  | 0.337$`\pm `$0.010 | 334.0$`\pm `$1.2 |
| 2002 Jun 30.15 |  | 0.334$`\pm `$0.004 | 337.9$`\pm `$0.9 |
| 2002 Jul 12.17 |  | 0.331$`\pm `$0.010 | 340.7$`\pm `$0.8 |
| 2002 Jan 12.06 | 2000 CF105 | 0.78$`\pm `$0.03 | 106.6$`\pm `$2.5 |
| 2002 Apr 11.3 |  | 0.8$`\pm `$0.2 | 103$`\pm `$5 |
|  | | | |

| Table 3: Photometry | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
 | | | | | | |
| date | object | component | V | R | I | V-I |
|  | | | | | | |
| 17 Nov 2001 | 1997 CQ29 | A | 23.78$`\pm `$0.13 | 23.27$`\pm `$0.19 | 22.54$`\pm `$0.09 | 1.24$`\pm `$0.16 |
|  |  | B | 24.02$`\pm `$0.22 | 23.54$`\pm `$0.23 | 23.06$`\pm `$0.18 | 0.9$`\pm `$0.3 |
| 18 Jun 2002 |  | A |  |  | 23.42$`\pm `$0.04 |  |
|  |  | B |  |  | 23.03$`\pm `$0.03 |  |
| 30 Jun 2002 |  | A |  |  | 22.63$`\pm `$0.03 |  |
|  |  | B |  |  | 22.96$`\pm `$0.04 |  |
| 12 Jul 2002 |  | A |  |  | 22.69$`\pm `$0.03 |  |
|  |  | B |  |  | 23.06$`\pm `$0.04 |  |
| 12 Jan 2002 | 2000 CF105 | A | 24.25$`\pm `$0.11 |  | 22.99$`\pm `$0.08 | 1.26$`\pm `$0.14 |
|  |  | B | 25.12$`\pm `$0.24 |  | 23.55$`\pm `$0.13 | 1.6$`\pm `$0.3 |
|  | | | | | | |


text:
# A Model of the Universe including dark Energy

## I Introduction

From 1998 to date several important discoveries in the astrophysical sciences have being made, which have given rise to the so called New Cosmology . Amongst its more important facts we may cite:

\- Flat, critical density accelerating universe

\- Early period of rapid expansion (inflation)

\- Density inhomogeneities produced from quantum fluctuations during inflation

\- Composition: 2/3 dark energy; 1/3 dark matter; 1/200 brigh stars

\- Matter content: $`(29\pm 4)\%`$ nonbarionic dark matter; $`(4\pm 1)\%`$ baryons, $`(0.15)\%`$ neutrinos

\- $`T_0=2.275\pm 0.001K`$

\- $`t_0=14\pm 1Gyr`$

\- $`H_0=72\pm 7km.s^1Mpc^1`$

The leading candidates to be identified with dark energy involve fundamental physics and include a cosmological constant (vacuum energy), a rolling scalar field (quintessence), and a network of light, frustrated topological defects .

Though probably there is a long way to go, the increasing amount of astrophysical data is providing tools (for instance, orthogonal tests) to break the known degeneracy of sets of cosmological parameters, increasing the accuracy of their determination. In some works, the use of several different data sets seems to favour a cosmological constant behaviour for today’s dark energy, though the results could be plagued by theoretical assumptions .

On the other hand, an eternally accelerating universe seems to be at odds with string theory, because of the impossibility of formulating the S-matrix. In a deSitter space the presence of an event horizon, signifying causally disconnected regions of space, implies the absence of asymptotic particle states which are needed to define transition amplitudes . Also in the context of perturbative quantum field theory a horizon problem appears, called superexpansionary divergence .

Exponential potentials are natural in theories with extra compact dimensions, such as Kaluza-Klein supergravity and superstring models . Exponential quintessence has been studied extensively in the literature and often discarded from limits on big-bang nucleosynthesis or on fine tuning arguments. This is the case when a fixed point solution for the quintessence evolution is reached early on in the universe, but it is possible that we have not yet reached this fixed point. For instance, in  it is shown that still there are reasonable regions of the parameter space of the simple exponential potential model for quintessence that are allowed by some observational constraints, and that the required level of fine tuning is not too stringent. Furthermore, several authors have recently pointed out that the degree of fine tuning needed in these scenarios is no more than in others usually accepted .

Due to the above there is a renewed interest in exponential quintessence, largely because in several scenarios exponential potentials can reproduce the present acceleration and predict future deceleration, avoiding the horizon problem that appears in the context of both perturbative quantum field and string theories.

The cosmological constant can be incorporated into the quintessence potential as a constant which shifts the potential value, especially, the value of the minimum of the potential, where the quintessence field rolls towards. Conversely, the height of the minimum of the potential can also be regarded as a part of the cosmological constant. Usually, for separating them, the possible nonzero height of the minimum of the potential is incorporated into the cosmological constant and then set to be zero. The cosmological constant can be provided by various kinds of matter, such as the vacuum energy of quantum fields and the potential energy of classical fields and may also be originated in the intrinsic geometry. So far there is no sufficient reason to set the cosmological constant (or the height of the minimum of the quintessence potential) to be zero . In particular, some mechanisms to generate a negative cosmological constant have been pointed out, in the context of spontaneous symmetry breaking , although the combined data of the 2dFGRS (two-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey) and CMB anisotropies suggest a positive cosmological constant .

The goal of this paper is to explore a model of the universe in which the dark energy component is accounted for by both a quintessence field and a negative cosmological constant. The net result of this combination would be a possitive ”effective” cosmological constant. In a former paper  we explored this scenario considering a single exponential potential for the quintessence field. However, several authors have shown that the double exponential potential tends to give a better agreement with experimental data . The quintessence field accounts for the present stage of accelerated expansion of the universe. Meanwhile, the inclusion of a negative cosmological constant warrants that the present stage of accelerated expansion will be, eventually, followed by a period of collapse into a final cosmological singularity (AdS universe).

## II The Model

We consider a model consisting of a three-component cosmological fluid: matter, scalar field (quintessence with an exponential potential) and cosmological constant. ”Matter” means barionic + cold dark matter, with no pressure, and the scalar field is minimally coupled and noninteracting with matter. This model cannot be used from the very beginning of the universe, but only since decoupling of radiation and dust. Thus, we don’t take into account inflation, creation of matter, nucleosynthesis, etc.

The action of the model under consideration is given by

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\{\frac{c^2}{16\pi G}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })+_\varphi +_m\},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant, $`_m`$ is the Lagrangian for the matter degrees of freedom and the Lagrangian for the quintessense field is given by

$$_\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{,n}\varphi ^{,n}V(\varphi ).$$
(2)
Now we apply the same technique of adimensional variables we proposed in  to determine the integration constants without additional assumptions. We use the dimensionless time variable $`\tau =H_0t`$, where $`t`$ is the cosmological time and $`H_0`$ is the present value of the Hubble parameter. In this case $`a(\tau )=\frac{a(t)}{a(0)}`$ is the scale factor. Then we have that, at present $`(\tau =0)`$

$`a(0)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (3)
$`\dot{a}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (4)
$`H(0)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (5)
Considering a homogeneous and isotropic universe and using the experimental fact of a spatially flat universe , the field equations derivable from (2.1) are

$$(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{2}{9}\sigma ^2\{\frac{\overline{D}}{a^3}+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\overline{V}(\varphi )+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\sigma ^2}\},$$
(6)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{2}{3}\sigma ^2\{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2\overline{V}(\varphi )\frac{3}{2}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\sigma ^2}\},$$
(7)
and

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }+\overline{V}^{}(\varphi )=0,$$
(8)
where the dot means derivative in respet to $`\tau `$ and,

$`\overline{V}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{A}^2e^{\sigma \varphi }+\overline{B}^2e^{\sigma \varphi },`$ (9)
$$\overline{X}^2=\frac{X^2}{H_0^2},$$
(10)
except for

$$\overline{D}=\frac{D}{a_0^3H_0^2}=\frac{\rho _{m_0}}{H_0^2},$$
(11)
with $`\rho _{m_0}`$ \- the present density of matter, $`\sigma ^2=\frac{12\pi G}{c^2}`$, and $`A^2`$ and $`B^2`$ \- generic constants.

Applying the Noether Symmetry Aproach , it can be shown that the new variables we should introduce to simplify the field equations are the same used in :

$$a^3=\frac{u^2v^2}{4},$$
(12)
and

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\sigma }\mathrm{ln}[\frac{B(u+v)}{A(uv)}].$$
(13)
Now the field equations take the form:

$$\ddot{u}=(\overline{A}\overline{B}\sigma ^2\sigma ^2\overline{V}_0),$$
(14)
and

$$\ddot{v}=(\overline{A}\overline{B}\sigma ^2+\sigma ^2\overline{V}_0)v.$$
(15)
where

$$\overline{V}_0=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\sigma ^2}$$
(16)
In what follows, we introduce the adimensional densities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ (in units of the critical density of the universe). Subscript $`i`$ = $`m`$, $`Q`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for matter, quintessence field and cosmlogical constant, respectively. Subscript $`0`$ represents present values (except for $`\overline{V}_0`$). We also introduce $`q`$, the deceleration parameter of the universe. Now, for definiteness, we assume the following relation between the constants:

$$\overline{A}^2=n\overline{B}^2=m\overline{V}_0,$$
(17)
where $`n`$ and $`m`$ are real parameters.

Then, the solutions of the equations (2.12) and (2.13) are

$$u(\tau )=b\mathrm{exp}[\sqrt{\frac{9}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}1)}t]+c\mathrm{exp}[\sqrt{\frac{9}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}1)}t],$$
(18)
$$v(\tau )=d\mathrm{sin}[\sqrt{\frac{9}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}+1)}t]+e\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{\frac{9}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}+1)}t],$$
(19)
In finding the integration constants we use the equations (2.3) and field equations evaluated at $`\tau =0`$. Finally, using $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q_0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, the integration constants are given through

$$e=\sqrt{\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0}4\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{12q_0}{3}}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}}2},$$
(20)
$$c=\frac{e\sqrt{6(23\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0}+2q_0)}6\sqrt{e^2+4}}{8\sqrt{\frac{9}{2}(m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+\frac{\sqrt{e^2+4}}{2},$$
(21)
$$b=\sqrt{e^2+4}c,$$
(22)
$$d=\frac{6+(b+c)(bc)\sqrt{\frac{9}{2}(m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{e\sqrt{\frac{9}{2}(m\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}+1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$
(23)
## III Analysis of results

Our constants (and, consequently, the solutions) depend on five physical parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`q_0`$ and on the positive real numbers $`m`$ and $`n`$.

Concerning the values of these parameters, since $`\sqrt{6(2+2q_03\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0})}`$ should be real (see equation (2.19)) then, the following constrain on the present value of the deceleration parameter follows

$$q_01.5\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0}1.$$
(24)
It was determined that the only relevant cosmological magnitude that has a sensible dependence on parameters $`m`$ and $`n`$ is the state parameter $`\omega `$. We used $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0}=0.3`$. Though we made calculations for several values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the range -0.01 a -0.30, for simplicity we present results for -0.15, bearing in mind that they change little for other values.

Figure 1 shows the evolution of the scale factor for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.15`$. It can be shown that, in other to have a collapsing universe, the following condition should be fulfilled (otherwise there is eternal expansion):

$$m<\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}$$
(25)
We also saw that with the decrease (modular increase) of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the time of collapse diminishes.

We got the dependence of the state parameter and of the deceleration parameter with the redshift and them we selected the values of $`m`$, $`n`$ and $`q_0`$. For this purpose we considered the results of Turner and Riess.

Figure 2 shows the behaviour of the deceleration parameter as function of the redshift z for the same values of the parameters. This figure shows an early stage of deceleration and a current epoch of acceleration. A transition from the decelerated phase to the acelerated one is seen approximately for z =0.5. We appreciate an increase of the deceleration parameter upon increasing the value of z. This points at a past epoch in the evolution when gravity of the dark energy was attractive. As follows from figure 1, aceleration is not eternal: in the future $`q>0`$ again, which gives rise to the collapse.

Figure 3 shows the evolution of the state parameter of the effective quintessence field $`\omega _\varphi `$. It’s noticeable that the effective quintessence field has state parameter $`\omega _\varphi `$ near $`0.8`$ today, which means that its behaviour is close to the pure cosmological constant, as a vacuum fluid. This is in agreement with the results of  when only the first Doppler peak is considered. If we are to explain the past and future deceleration obtained in our model, it’s important to look at the dynamical quintessence field. We see that in the recent past $`\omega _\varphi >0`$, which implies that quintessence field behaved (or simply was) like ordinary atractive matter, giving rise to the logical deceleration. In the future this will happen again ($`\omega _\varphi >0)`$ , with the consequent deceleration.

The present values of the physical parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_0}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.15`$, and $`q_0=0.34`$, were chosen after a detailed analisys of the behaviour of these parameters shown in figs. 2 and 3.

Now we proceed to analyze how our solution reproduces some experimental results. With this purpose, in Fig. 4 we plot the distance modulus $`\delta (z)`$ vs redshift z, calculated by us and the one obtained with the usual model with a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term. The relative deviations are of about 0.3$`\%`$, which improves the 0.5$`\%`$ obtained by us in  for the single exponential potential.

## IV Conclusions

In a recent paper  it is pointed out that the ultimate fate of our universe is much more sensitive to the presence of the cosmological constant than any other matter content. In particular, the universe with a negative cosmological constant will always collapse eventually, even though the cosmological constant may be nearly zero and undetectable at all at the present time. It is also interesting that Sen and Sethi, using an ansatz for the scale factor that produces future deceleration, obtain from the field equations that the quintessence potential should be a double exponential plus a constant .Our results also support the very general assertions of , we have shown that for a determined region of the parameter space, the universe collapses. This also favours the formulation of string and quantum field theories, as explained in the introduction. The experimental measurements of modulus distance from the supernovae are adequately reproduced within an accuracy of 0.3$`\%`$. So far, we have investigated one of the several possible branches of the solution, leaving for the future the investigation of the others. We have also reserved for future work the careful examination of this universe near its beginning (i.e., just after the decoupling of matter and radiation), and the proper constrain of the parameters of this model using several data sets.

We acknowledge Claudio Rubano, Mauro Sereno and Paolo Scudellaro, from Universita di Napoli ”Federico II” , Italy, for useful comments and discussions and Andro Gonzales for help in the computations. We also acknowledge Alessandro Melchiorri, from Oxford University, for drawing our attention to reference .


text:
# Approximating chiral quark models with linear 𝜎-models

## 1 Introduction

Various $`\sigma `$-models, *i.e.* effective models incorporating the spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, play an important role in modeling the low-energy hadronic physics. The original Gell-Mann-Lévy linear $`\sigma `$-model , after replacing nucleons by quarks , has been used to describe the binding mechanism of quarks inside baryons and to produce quite successful phenomenologies of baryons. Actually, these models, with Lagrangians containing up to two derivatives of fields, may be viewed as formal approximations to models with purely quark degrees of freedom, such as the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model  with quarks (for review and further references to these models in the context of mesons see, e.g., , and in the contexts of chiral solitons e.g., ). Indeed, gradient expansion techniques  produce mesonic terms of the form used in various $`\sigma `$-models. Admittedly, questions of convergence of the gradient-expansion series are difficult, and it is not clear how many terms should be present in the mesonic theory such that it approximates satisfactorily the underlying quark theory. On the other hand, the $`\sigma `$-like models are much simpler to solve, since they do not carry the complications of the Dirac sea, which for models of baryons is technically difficult to treat, and a massive computational effort is involved. Therefore, it is desirable to understand how to construct much simpler and more intuitive effective $`\sigma `$-models which carry valence quarks only, and then to investigate what role is played by various mesonic terms arising from the gradient expansion.

In this paper we analyze a particular extension of the linear $`\sigma `$-model coupled to valence quarks, which contains an additional term with two gradients of the chiral fields. This term, arising naturally in the process of gradient-expanding NJL-like models, has not been, to our knowledge, considered before. It has dynamical consequences for the model and, in addition, allows for a more efficient approximation of the underlying quark model. We discuss the nature of the term and its consequences for the Euler-Lagrange equations in Sec. 2. In Sec. 3 we show how the term arises when the NJL model is gradient-expanded and explain how the parameters of the resulting $`\sigma `$-model can be derived. We estimate the strength of the new term in NJL model with the sharp four-momentum cut-off, and find that it is large. We then proceed to analyzing its dynamical effects for chiral solitons. In Sec. 4 we consider the straightforward extension of the $`\sigma `$-model, and find that the new term lowers the energy of the soliton, thus contributing to binding and its energetic stability. In Sec. 5 we apply our analysis to the chiral quark model with non-local regulator , where we show that the inclusion of the new term allows for a more efficient approximation of the underlying quark theory.

## 2 The $`A`$-term

By means of general symmetry arguments, in the construction of the effective Lagrangian one has at hand the invariants of the given symmetry group, in the case considered here the chiral $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$. The chiral fields, *i.e.* the scalar-isoscalar $`\sigma `$-field and the three pion fields, $`\pi ^a`$, belong to the $`(1/2,`$ $`1/2)`$ representation of this group. The typical chiral invariants one can form out of the chiral fields, arranged in the increasing number of spatial derivatives, are

$`\sigma ^2+\pi ^2,`$
$`\sigma ^\mu \sigma +\pi ^a^\mu \pi ^a,`$
$`(^\mu \sigma )(^\nu \sigma )+(^\mu \pi ^a)(^\nu \pi ^a),`$
$`(^{\mu \alpha }\sigma )(^\nu \sigma )+(^{\mu \alpha }\pi ^a)(^\nu \pi ^a),`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{etc}.`$
Similarly, the coupling to Dirac fields, $`\psi `$, allows to construct invariants of the form $`\overline{\psi }(\sigma +i\gamma _5\tau ^a\pi ^a)\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu (\sigma ^\mu \sigma +\pi ^a^\mu \pi ^a)\psi `$, etc. The above invariants are next combined in such a way as to form Lorentz invariants. In the mesonic sector, up to terms involving two gradients, we have the general form for the mesonic Lagrangian,

$$L_{\mathrm{mes}}=V+\frac{1}{2}Z[(_\mu \sigma )^2+(_\mu \pi ^a)^2]+\frac{1}{2}A[\sigma ^\mu \sigma +\pi ^a^\mu \pi ^a]^2,$$
(2)
with $`V`$, $`Z`$, and $`A`$ denoting, at the moment, arbitrary functions of the invariant $`\sigma ^2+\pi ^2`$. The last term in Eq. (2), called from now on the $`A`$-term, is new compared to previous works. In the original Gell-Mann–Lévy model this term is excluded by the requirement of renormalizability. Since we are going to use (2) as an effective model, approximating the underlying quark theory, the model need not and should not be renormalizable, hence the $`A`$-term may be present. Moreover, as we will show in Sec. 3, the appearance of the $`A`$-term naturally follows from the gradient expansion of the quark models with the Dirac sea, such as the NJL model and its modifications.

The linearity of the model is an essential feature in our study. The non-linear constraint imposed on the chiral fields, $`\sigma ^2+\pi ^2=const.`$, immediately kills the $`A`$-term, since $`\sigma ^\mu \sigma +\pi ^a^\mu \pi ^a=\frac{1}{2}`$ $`^\mu (\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)=0`$. As a matter of fact, the underlying quark models lead to linear chiral models, and the non-linearity in most approaches  is superimposed externally. 111In fact, in these works the non-linear constraint is needed to provide stability of solitons . On the other hand, in non-local models of Refs.  stability of solitons is achieved without the “external” non-linear constraint.

In the following we shall use the coupling to quarks of the form as in the Gell-Mann-Levy model , *i.e.* $`g\overline{\psi }(\sigma +i\gamma _5\tau ^a\pi ^a)\psi `$, with $`\psi `$ containing the valence quark orbit only. The Dirac sea has been (approximately) integrated out and entered into the mesonic part of the Lagrangian. In addition, for simplicity of the calculations, we assume that the functionals $`Z`$ and $`A`$ are constant, $`i.e.`$ do not depend on the value of the chiral fields:

$$Z(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)=Z_0,A(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)=A_0.$$
(3)
This assumptions is justified as long as the field do not depart too far away from the chiral circle.

The mean-field Euler-Lagrange equations resulting from Eq. (2) have the form

$`Z_0\mathrm{}\sigma +A_0\sigma \left[(_\mu \sigma )^2+(_\mu \pi ^a)^2+\sigma \mathrm{}\sigma +\pi ^a\mathrm{}\pi ^a\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sigma }}+j_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`Z_0\mathrm{}\pi ^a+A_0\pi ^a\left[(_\mu \sigma )^2+(_\mu \pi ^b)^2+\sigma \mathrm{}\sigma +\pi ^b\mathrm{}\pi ^b\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\pi ^a}}+j_\pi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
where $`j_\sigma `$ and $`j_\pi ^a`$ are the valence quark sources,

$$j_\sigma =g\underset{ival}{}\overline{q}_iq_i,j_\pi ^a=g\underset{ival}{}\overline{q}_ii\gamma _5\tau ^aq_i,$$
(5)
and $`q_i`$ are the valence orbitals.222The effects of the Dirac sea are included in the mesonic degrees of freedom. As can be seen from Eqs. (4), the $`A`$-term mixes the propagation of the chiral fields. Equations (4) can be diagonalized and brought to the simple matrix form

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\sigma \\ \mathrm{}\pi ^a\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_0\left(Z_0+(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)A_0\right)}}\times `$ (8)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_0+A_0\pi ^2& A_0\sigma \pi ^a\\ A_0\sigma \pi ^a& Z_0+A_0\sigma ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}A_0\sigma ((_\mu \sigma )^2+(_\mu \pi ^b)^2)+V/\sigma +j_\sigma \\ A_0\pi ^a((_\mu \sigma )^2+(_\mu \pi ^b)^2)+V/\pi ^a+j_\pi ^a\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
If $`A_0=0`$, the usual Gell-Mann-Lévy $`\sigma `$-model equations of motion are recovered.

Equations (4) are simple to solve in the vacuum sector. In this case the $`A`$ and $`Z`$ terms do not contribute and one has the familiar result:

$$\sigma =F,\pi ^a=0,$$
(14)
where $`F=93`$ MeV denotes the pion decay constant. As usual, we introduce the shifted $`\sigma `$-field, $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma F`$, and find for the small-amplitude fluctuations of the chiral fields around their vacuum values (14) the following equations of motion

$`(Z_0+A_0F^2)\mathrm{}\sigma ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{\sigma ^2}}|_{\sigma ^{}=\pi =0}\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`Z_0\mathrm{}\pi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{\pi ^a\pi ^b}}|_{\sigma ^{}=\pi =0}\pi ^b`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (15)
We can thus canonically normalize the pion field by choosing $`Z_0=1`$. Then, for non-zero $`A_0`$, the normalization of the $`\sigma `$ field is not canonical, and carries the factor $`1+A_0F^2`$, which means that the mass squared of the physical $`\sigma ^{}`$ field is given by the expression

$$m_\sigma ^2=(1+A_0F^2)^1\frac{^2V}{\sigma ^2}|_{\sigma ^{}=\pi =0}$$
(16)
One can easily check that the $`A`$-term *does not contribute* explicitly to the vector, $`V_\mu ^a`$, and axial-vector, $`A_\mu ^a`$, Noether currents. The meson contributions remain to be the usual $`\sigma `$-model expressions,

$`V_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`Zϵ^{abc}(_\mu \pi ^b)\pi ^c,`$
$`A_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`Z\left(\sigma _\mu \pi ^a\pi ^a_\mu \sigma \right).`$ (17)
The above expressions hold for the case of general $`Z`$ and $`A`$. Therefore the expressions for the magnetic moments or $`g_A`$ used in soliton calculations  are not modified. However, changes in these quantities are induced by the $`A`$-term through the change of the dynamics in Eqs. (8).

## 3 Motivation from quark models

We are now going to argue that the presence of the $`A`$-term in effective chiral Lagrangians follows naturally if one considers approximations to chiral quark models, such as the NJL model. For simplicity of notation we work in the strict chiral limit of the vanishing current quark mass. The action of the bosonized NJL model at the one-quark-loop level can be written as (see, e.g., )

$`I(\sigma ,\pi ^a)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\mathrm{log}\left(_\tau +h\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2G^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)},`$ (18)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{}+\beta g(\sigma +i\gamma _5\tau ^a\pi ^a).`$ (19)
The trace is over color, flavor, Dirac, and functional space, $`\tau `$ denotes the Euclidean time. We have introduced an additional parameter, $`g`$, the quark-meson coupling constant, which allows us to fix the vacuum value of the $`\sigma `$-field by imposing the condition (14). The constant $`G`$ is the four-quark coupling constant of the original NJL model . The constituent quark mass is related to the pion decay constant,

$$M=gF.$$
(20)
For many practical applications (study of large-size solitons, checking numerical computations) it is useful to have an approximation to this model, which is much simpler to deal with. In practice, this amounts to the gradient expansion  of action (18), with the hope that for sufficiently large-size solitons the expansion should work fine. Also, in many models the fields lie close to the chiral circle, therefore another good expansion parameter is the combination

$$\delta =\sigma ^2+\pi ^2F^2,$$
(21)
which measures the departure of the fields from the chiral circle. We can thus expand

$$V(\delta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n\delta ^n,Z(\delta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Z_n\delta ^n,A(\delta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n\delta ^n.$$
(22)
The coefficients $`V_n`$, $`Z_n`$ and $`A_n`$ can be found by comparing the Green’s functions obtained from (18) to those obtained at the effective level from (2).

Our technique may be viewed as a double expansion: in the number of gradients, up to two, and in the parameter $`\delta `$. In the functions $`Z`$ and $`A`$ we thus keep the terms up to zeroth order in $`\delta `$, while in the potential $`V`$ we shall keep term up to second order in $`\delta `$.

To begin, we recall the gradient expansion of $`V`$, which is easy, since for that purpose one can treat the fields as space-time independent. We also have the grand-reversal symmetry , which leads to $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}\left(_\tau +h\right)=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}\left(_\tau +h\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}\left(_\tau ^2+h^2\right)`$. Therefore

$`V(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cN_f{\displaystyle \frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{log}\left(k^2+g^2\left(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2\right)\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2G^2}}(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{const}.,`$
where $`k`$ is the Euclidean momentum flowing along the quark loop, $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors, and $`N_f=2`$ is the number of flavors. The constant can be chosen such that $`V=0`$ in the vacuum (14). In addition, the stationary-point condition, $`V/\sigma |_{\mathrm{vac}}=0`$, has the explicit form

$$\frac{1}{2G^2}=2N_cN_f\frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2+M^2}.$$
(24)
Plugging (24) into (23) results in the following formula for $`V`$:

$$V(\delta )=2N_cN_f\frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{g^2\delta }{k^2+M^2}\right)\frac{g^2\delta }{k^2+M^2}\right].$$
(25)
The coefficients of the expansion (25) are:

$`V_0`$ $`=`$ $`V_1=0,`$
$`V_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{()^n}{n}}2N_cN_f{\displaystyle \frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{1}{k^2+M^2}\right)^n},n>1.`$
We should bear in mind that the expansion for the $`\mathrm{log}`$ is rather slowly convergent, such that many terms in Eq. (22) may be needed to reproduce well the full result (23). Retaining the $`n=2`$ term only corresponds to the use of the usual Mexican hat potential.

Next, we calculate the coefficients $`Z_0`$ and $`A_0`$. For that purpose one can consider mesonic two-point Green functions. In the vacuum the inverse $`\sigma `$ and pion propagators obtained from Eq. (2) are (the momentum $`q`$ is Euclidean):

$`K_\pi ^1(q)\delta ^{ab}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2L}{\delta \pi ^a(q)\delta \pi ^b(q)}}=Z_0q^2\delta ^{ab},`$ (26)
$`K_\sigma ^1(q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2L}{\delta \sigma (q)\delta \sigma (q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2)}{\sigma ^2}}|_{\mathrm{vac}}+\left(Z_0+F^2A_0\right)q^2.`$
Meanwhile, in the NJL model one obtains, with help of Eqs. (18,19), the following formulas for the inverse meson propagators:

$`K_\pi ^1`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2N_cN_ff(M,q^2)q^2=2g^2N_cN_ff(M,0)q^2+O(q^4),`$ (27)
$`K_\sigma ^1`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2N_cN_ff(M,q^2)(q^2+4M^2)=8g^2N_cN_fM^2f(M,0)`$
$`+`$ $`2g^2N_cN_f\left(f(M,0)+4M^2df(M,q^2)/dq^2|_{q=0}\right)q^2+O(q^4),`$
where

$$f(M,q^2)=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{\left(\left(k+q/2\right)^2+M^2\right)\left(\left(kq/2\right)^2+M^2\right)}.$$
(28)
The index $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the integral denotes an appropriate regulator , necessary for the model to become finite. By comparing (26) and (27) we immediately arrive at the relations

$`Z_0`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2N_cN_ff(M,0),`$ (29)
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`8g^2N_cN_f(M/F)^2df(M,q^2)/dq^2|_{q=0}.`$
Through the use of the relation $`F=M\sqrt{2N_cN_ff(M,0)}`$  and Eq. (20) we obtain the formulas

$`Z_0`$ $`=`$ $`1\text{or}g^2=2N_cN_ff(M,0),`$ (30)
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`4g^2{\displaystyle \frac{df(M,q^2)/dq^2|_{q=0}}{f(M,0)}}.`$
In order to estimate the size of the $`A`$-term, in Fig. 1 we plot the quantity $`1+F^2A_0`$, which plays the role of the wave function renormalization for the $`\sigma `$-field. In the study of this section we have used the sharp four-momentum cut-off on the quark loop in Eq. (28). The calculation is performed in the chiral limit, and with the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ chosen in such a way as to reproduce the physical value of $`F=93`$ MeV. We note that the effect of the $`A`$-term is very strong, with the combination $`1+F^2A_0`$ ranging from 0.6 at $`M=300`$ MeV to as little as 0.1 at $`M=600`$ MeV, to be compared to unity of the case without the $`A`$-term.

It is easy to derive full expressions for $`Z`$ and $`A`$. With the notation of Eq. (21) we find

$`Z(\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2N_cN_f{\displaystyle \frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{\left(k^2+\left(g^2\delta +M^2\right)\right)^2}},`$ (31)
$`A(\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`2g^4N_cN_f{\displaystyle \frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2+2\left(g^2\delta +M^2\right)}{\left(k^2+\left(g^2\delta +M^2\right)\right)^4}}.`$ (32)
These formulas can be straightforwardly expanded in powers of $`\delta `$ to produce all coefficients in (22).

Note that while the sign of $`Z_0`$ is positive-definite, the sign $`A_0`$ is negative-definite. Therefore the presence of the $`A`$-term in the effective Lagrangian lowers the wave function renormalization of the $`\sigma `$-field, thereby increasing its mass, as follows from Eq. (16).

## 4 Chiral solitons

In the following parts of this paper we are going to explore the dynamical consequences of the $`A`$-term for chiral solitons. First, we consider the simplest case: the generalization of the Gell-Mann–Lévy Lagrangian of the form

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(_\mu \sigma )^2+(_\mu \pi ^a)^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_0[\sigma ^\mu \sigma +\pi ^a^\mu \pi ^a]^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4}}(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2\nu ^2)^2`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`c\sigma g\overline{\psi }(i\text{ / }+\sigma +i\gamma _5\tau ^a\pi ^a)\psi ,`$
with

$`\lambda ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2}{2F^2}},\nu ^2={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_\sigma ^23m_\pi ^2}{\overline{m}_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2}}F^2,c=m_\pi ^2F,`$
$`\overline{m}_\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+F^2A_0)m_\sigma ^2.`$ (34)
The last equality ensures that the sigma mass is $`m_\sigma `$, according to Eq. (16). The constants $`g`$, $`m_\sigma `$, and $`A_0`$ are treated as model parameters. The resulting mean-field equations of the form (8), and the equations for the upper and lower components of the valence quark orbital , are solved with the hedgehog ansatz for the chiral fields: $`\sigma (x)=\sigma (r)`$, $`\pi ^a(x)=r^a/r`$ $`\pi (r)`$, where $`r`$ denotes the radial coordinate.

A typical solution, for $`g=4.5`$, $`m_\sigma =900`$ MeV, and $`F^2A_0=0.6`$ (dashed lines) and $`A_0=0`$ (solid lines), is presented in Fig. 2, where we show the chiral fields, and the radial valence quark density (radial baryon density), $`4\pi r^2\rho _B(r)=4\pi r^2q^{}q`$, plotted as functions of the radial coordinate $`r`$. The chosen value of $`A_0`$ is suggested by the analysis of Sec. 3, *cf.* Fig. 1. The values of $`g`$ and $`m_\sigma `$ are the typical values used in other studies. We notice that the presence of the $`A`$-term weakens the pion field by about $`20\%`$, modifies the shape of the $`\sigma `$ field, as well as slightly increases the size of the soliton, which is visible from the baryon-density curves. The results do not depend qualitatively on the values of the parameters $`g`$ and $`m_\sigma `$. As expected, the effect is more pronounced if the chiral fields lie away from the chiral circle.

In Fig. 3 we study the behavior of the soliton energy as a function of the coupling constant $`g`$. Again, we use $`F^2A_0=0.6`$ (dashed lines) and $`A_0=0`$ (solid lines). For $`m_\sigma `$ we take two “extreme values”, $`400`$ MeV and $`1200`$ MeV. We note that the inclusion of the $`A`$-term lowers the energy of the soliton for all values of $`g`$. The lowering is a significant effect, by the amount of a few tens of MeV. The solitons become energetically stable when their energy is lower than the energy of three free quarks, $`3M`$, denoted in Fig. 3 by the straight solid line. With the $`A`$-term present, the stability is achieved at lower values of $`g`$. This is a desired effect since many phenomenological approaches  have problems in getting the mass in the right ball park if $`g`$ is too high.

On the other hand, as expected, the $`A`$-term has negligible effect on the nucleon observables (only of the order of few percent), since it does not explicitly enter in the expressions for the Noether currents (17).

## 5 Model with the non-local regulator

Recently, considerable progress has been made in the treatment of chiral quark models with non-local interactions. It these models, rather then cutting the momentum in the quark loop, the finiteness of the theory is achieved by the non-locality of the four-quark interaction. In fact, the model derivations of effective chiral quark models, such as the instanton-liquid model , or the resummations of rainbow diagrams in the Schwinger-Dyson approach , lead in a natural way to non-local models . Their applications range from the meson sector , through quark matter at non-zero temperature  and baryon number , chiral solitons , to applications in exclusive processes in QCD . The advantages of non-local models include such features as the natural preservation of anomalies, finiteness to all orders in the $`1/N_c`$-expansion, such that the meson-loop calculations can be done with no extra parameters , or the stability of solitons without the need for the non-linear constraint. The solitons of non-local models, their construction and the resulting phenomenology, have been discussed in detail in Refs. . Here we are going to check how well we can approximate the full, complicated model, with the $`\sigma `$-type model supplied with the $`A`$-term.

The effective action for the non-local model has the form (18), with the crucial difference that now the Dirac Hamiltonian carries the regularization operator, $`r`$ :

$$h=i\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{}+r(^2)\beta g(\sigma +i\gamma _5\tau ^a\pi ^a)r(^2)+\beta m.$$
(35)
The current quark mass is denoted by $`m`$. It is convenient to introduce the notation $`R=r^2`$. One can straightforwardly derive the expression for the effective potential,

$`V(\sigma ,\pi ^a)`$ $`=`$ $`2N_cN_f{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\times `$
$`\left[\mathrm{log}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2R^2\delta +2mgR(\sigma F)}{k^2+\left(RM+m\right)^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2\left(R^2+Rm/M\right)\delta }{k^2+\left(RM+m\right)^2}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`V_2(\sigma ^2+\pi ^2F^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\pi ^2\left[(\sigma F)^2+\pi ^2\right]+O(m^2,m\delta ^2,\delta ^3),`$
which gives

$$V_2=N_cN_fg^4\frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{R^4}{\left(k^2+R^2M^2\right)^2}.$$

The formulas for $`Z_0`$ and $`A_0`$ obtained from the non-local model read

$`Z_0=2N_cN_fg^2{\displaystyle \frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{R^2k^2RR^{}+(k^2R^{})^2}{\left(k^2+R^2M^2\right)^2}},`$ (37)
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`8N_cN_fg^4{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d_4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\times `$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2((k^2+2R^2M^2)R^22k^2(2k^2+R^2M^2)RR^{}+8k^6R^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}{4\left(k^2+R^2M^2\right)^4}},`$
where $`R^{}=dR/d(k^2)`$. The model parameters are fitted in such a way that $`Z_0=1`$, which ensures that $`F`$ has its physical value .

The presence of the regulator $`r`$ dependent on the momentum modifies the Noether currents of the theory . As a result, discussed in detail in Refs. , the contributions of the valence quarks to the Euler-Lagrange equations carry an extra residue factor, $`z_{\mathrm{val}}`$. This factor is defined as

$$z_{\mathrm{val}}=\left(1i\frac{dϵ_{\mathrm{val}}(\omega )}{d\omega }|_{\omega =iϵ_{\mathrm{val}}}\right)^1,$$
(39)
with $`ϵ_{\mathrm{val}}(\omega )`$ denoting the energy-dependent valence-orbital eigenvalue of the energy-dependent Dirac Hamiltonian (35). It satisfies the equation

$$h\left(ϵ_{\mathrm{val}}^2\right)|\mathrm{val}=ϵ_{\mathrm{val}}|\mathrm{val}.$$
(40)
Thus,

$`j_\sigma (\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`gN_cz_{\mathrm{val}}\mathrm{val}|r|\stackrel{}{x}\beta \stackrel{}{x}|r|\mathrm{val},`$ (41)
$`j_\pi ^a(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`gN_cz_{\mathrm{val}}\mathrm{val}|r|\stackrel{}{x}\beta i\gamma _5\tau ^a\stackrel{}{x}|r|\mathrm{val}.`$
In the numerical study presented in this paper we use the Gaussian regulator,

$$R(k)=r(k)^2=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{k^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}).$$
(42)
In Fig. 4 we compare the hedgehog soliton solutions of the non-local quark model, defined by Eqs. (18,35,42), with those of the approximating $`\sigma `$-like model, defined by Eqs. (2,5,38,5), and prescriptions (39,40,5) for the valence orbit. We plot the energy of the solution as a function of the quark-meson coupling constant, $`g`$. The solid line on the right corresponds to the non-local quark model, the dotted line to the approximating model with $`A_0=0`$, and the dashed line to the approximating model with $`A_0`$ given by Eq. (38). Similarly to the study of Sec. 4, the inclusion of the $`A`$-term results in lowering of the energy. We note that the model with the $`A`$-term approximates the full non-local quark model better than the model with $`A_0=0`$. In particular, at lower values of $`g`$ the agreement is very good, since in that region the solitons are large and the gradient expansion works well even at the lowest order. The solid line on the left corresponds to the energy of three free quarks in the non-local quark model .

Comparing the nucleon observables calculated in the approximating model to those calculated in the full model  we find that the valence contribution to $`g_A`$ and the magnetic moment is reproduced within a few percents for $`g`$ below 3.5 (corresponding to $`M`$ below 325 MeV), and within 10 % for $`g3.5`$. The meson contribution to the magnetic moment is again reproduced well for $`g3.3`$, and is typically 20 % larger than the sea contribution in the quark model for $`g3.7`$, and more than 30 % for $`g5`$. On the other hand, the meson contribution to $`g_A`$ is a factor of 2 too large compared to the sea contribution already for $`g`$ slightly above the threshold value $`g=3`$; this factor rises to 3 at $`g5`$. The results do not change much if we switch-off the $`A`$-term; the only noticeable difference is in the meson contribution to the magnetic moment at larger values of $`g`$ where the inclusion of the $`A`$-term improves the results by 5 % – 10 %. This is a dynamical effect reflecting the tendency of the $`A`$-term to reduce the strength of the pion field, as can be seen already in Fig. 2.

## 6 Conclusion

We have analyzed the models approximating the chiral quark models with four-quark interaction. The models are constructed with help of the gradient-expansion technique, good for large solitons. We have found that the inclusion of the $`A`$-term, appearing naturally in the gradient expansion of the underlying theory, improves the approximating model. The term results in a significant (a few tens of MeV) lowering of the energy of the soliton. This effect is particularly important in the non-local model, where the $`A`$-term considerably improves the approximating model such that for lower values of the quark-meson coupling the energy follows almost exactly the energy obtained in the full quark model. We wish to stress that the variants of the $`\sigma `$-model, which result from the approximation of the full quark model via the gradient expansion are much simpler to solve than the original theory. They avoid the complications of the numerical treatment of the Dirac sea, and thus are useful and more practical in the studies of soliton models of baryons.

The authors wish to thank Enrique Ruiz Arriola and George Ripka for several useful discussions. One of us (WB) wishes to thank the organizers of the Bled Workshops in Physics, where this research was initiated, for their kind hospitality and stimulating atmosphere.