text:
# Untitled Document

Tsemo Aristide

Visitor, University of Toronto

Department of mathematics

100 St Georges Street

tsemoaristide@hotmail.com

THE DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF COMPOSITION SEQUENCES OF DIFFERENTIABLE MANIFOLDS.

Abstract.

Let $`F_0=B,F_1,..,F_n`$ be a sequence of differentiable manifolds and $`G_l,l1`$ a Lie subgroup of the group of diffeomorphisms of $`F_l`$, $`H_l`$ a central subgroup of $`G_l`$. We denote by $`K_l`$ the quotient of $`G_l`$ by $`H_l`$. We suppose also given a locally trivial principal bundle $`p_{K_l}`$ over $`F_{l1}`$ which typical fiber is $`K_l`$. In this paper we study the differential geometry of the problem of the existence of a composition sequence of manifolds $`M_nM_{n1}..M_0=B`$, where each map $`f_l:M_lM_{l1}`$ is a locally trivial differentiable bundle over $`M_{l1}`$ which typical fiber is $`F_l`$, and such that the image of the transitions functions is contained in $`G_l`$. We associated to this problem a tower of gerbes, and we study its differential geometry: that is we define the notion of connective structure and curvature.

Introduction.

Let $`F_0=B,F_1,..,F_n`$ be a sequence of differentiable manifolds and $`G_l,l1`$ a Lie subgroup of the group of diffeomorphisms of $`F_l`$, $`H_l`$ a central subgroup of $`G_l`$. We denote by $`K_l`$ the quotient of $`G_l`$ by $`H_l`$. We suppose also given a principal bundle $`p_{K_l}`$ over $`F_{l1}`$ which typical fiber is $`K_l`$. In this paper we study the differential geometry of the problem of the existence of a composition sequence of manifolds $`M_nM_{n1}..M_0=B`$, where each map $`f_l:M_lM_{l1}`$ is a locally trivial differentiable bundle over $`M_{l1}`$ which typical fiber is $`F_l`$, and such that the image of the transitions functions is contained in $`G_k`$. We can associate to $`f_l`$ a bundle over $`M_{l1}`$ which typical fiber is $`G_l`$, we suppose also that the quotient of the restriction of this bundle to a fiber of $`f_{l1}`$ by $`H_l`$ is $`p_{K_l}`$. We associated to this problem a tower of gerbes, and we study its differential geometry.

The construction of those sequences of fibrations fits in the general problem of the construction of structures in mathematics. There are essentially two ways to obtain new structures:

One is the completion procedure, which is used generally to create space in which unsolved problems have a solution. It also shows the link between algebra and analysis.

The other essential manner to construct structures in mathematics is the gluing procedure, which is the bridge from analysis to geometry. It is the one involved in our problem. To solve the gluing problem, that is to find obstructions to define global objects which are defined locally, one needs cohomology theories interpreted geometrically.

More practically, consider a topological manifold $`M`$, it is built by gluing open subsets of a vector space say $`E`$, to study $`M`$, we can for example generalize tools used to study $`E`$. For instance, we can define the notion of continuous functions. Can functions defined locally be defined globally ? This problem is solved using a $`1`$ cohomology theory.

The notion of sheaf of functions leads to the notion of locally trivial bundles. which are particular case of sheaves of functions. One can also try to solve the following problem. Can sheaves of bundles defined locally be defined globally? To solve this problem, one needs the notion of stacks defined by Giraud . The obstructions to solve this problem is given by a $`2`$cohomology theory.

More generally, one can try to define the notion of sheaf of stacks ($`3`$sheaf) which would lead to the notion of a $`3`$cohomology theories,…, the notion of $`n`$sheaf, which would lead to the notion of a $`n`$dimension cohomology theory.

To define a notion of $`n`$sheaf, one needs to define first, the notion of $`n`$category, which is not well understood nowadays.

The gluing procedure in the $`1`$dimensional case is the theory of sheaves. It is used to construct Hilbert schemes (see Gottsche ).

In the two dimensional case, it has been established by Giraud , it is the theory of stacks.

I. The first lifting problem.

Let $`B`$ and $`F`$ be two differentiable manifolds, $`G`$ a Lie subgroup of diffeomorphisms of $`F`$, $`H`$ a subgroup of $`G`$ central in $`G`$, we denote by $`K`$ the quotient $`G/H`$. We suppose defined on $`B`$ a locally trivial $`K`$principal bundle. We want to study the differential geometry of the following problem: Classify the locally trivial bundles over $`B`$, which typical fiber is $`F`$ and such that the family of elements $`g_{ij}`$ which define each trivialization $`(U_i,g_{ij},i,jI)`$ is included in $`G`$. This means that the $`Diff(F)`$ bundle associated to the bundle has a $`G`$reduction. We can associate also to a solution of our problem a principal bundle $`p_G`$ over $`B`$ which typical fiber is $`G`$. We suppose moreover that the quotient of $`p_G`$ by $`H`$ is $`p_K`$. This problem will be called the first lifting problem.

We have the exact sequence $`1HGK1`$. We will assume that the map $`GK`$ has local sections.

Our problem is equivalent to the following: study the existence of a bundle over $`B`$ which typical fiber is $`G`$, and which quotient by $`H`$ is $`p_K`$. To solve it, we will define a gerbe over $`B`$ which classifying cocycle is the obstruction of the existence of such a bundle. This problem will be called the principal problem associated to the first lifting problem.

Let’s recall now some facts from gerbe theory.

Definition 1.

Let $`B`$ be a manifold, a sheaf $`S`$ of categories on $`B`$, is a map $`US(U)`$, where $`U`$ is an open set of $`B`$, and $`S(U)`$ category which satisfies the following properties:

\- To each inclusion $`UV`$, there exists a map $`r_{U,V}:S(V)S(U)`$ such that $`r_{U,V}r_{V,W}=r_{U,W}`$.

\- Gluing conditions for objects,

Consider a covering family $`(U_i)_{iI}`$ of an open set $`U`$ of $`B`$, and for each $`i`$, an object $`x_i`$ of $`S(U_i)`$, suppose that there exists a map $`g_{ij}:r_{U_iU_j,U_j}(x_j)r_{U_iU_j,U_i}(x_i)`$ such that $`g_{ij}g_{jk}=g_{ik}`$, then there exists an object $`x`$ of $`C(U)`$ such that $`r_{U_i,U}(x)=x_i`$

Gluing conditions for arrows,

Consider two objects $`P`$ and $`Q`$ of $`S(B)`$, then the map $`UHom(r_{U,B}(P),r_{U.B}(Q))`$ is a sheaf.

Moreover, if the following conditions are satisfied the sheaf of categories $`S`$ is called a gerbe

$`G1`$

There exists a covering family $`(U_i)_{iI}`$ of $`B`$ such that for each $`i`$ the category $`S(U_i)`$ is not empty

$`G2`$

Let $`U`$ be an open set of $`B`$, for each objects $`x`$ and $`y`$ of $`U`$, there exists a covering $`(U_i)_{iI}`$ of $`U`$ such that $`r_{U_i,U}(x)`$ and $`r_{U_i,U}(y)`$ are isomorphic

$`G3`$

Every arrow of $`S(U)`$ is invertible, and there exists a sheaf $`A`$ in groups on $`B`$, such that for each object $`x`$ of $`S(U)`$, $`Hom(x,x)=A(U)`$, an this family of isomorphisms commute with the restriction maps.

The sheaf $`A`$ is called the band of the gerbe $`S`$, in the sequel, we will consider only gerbes with commutative band.

Notation.

for a covering family $`(U_i)_{iI}`$ of $`B`$, and an object $`x_i`$ of $`S(U_i)`$, we denote by $`x_{i_1..i_n}^i`$ the element $`r_{(U_{i_1}..U_{i_n},U_i)}(x_i)`$, and by $`U_{i_1..i_n}`$ the intersection $`U_{i_1}..U_{i_n}`$.

Let endows $`B`$ with a gerbe $`S`$ with band $`A`$, one can associates the following two Cech cocycle to $`B`$. Consider a covering family $`(U_i)_{iI}`$ such that for each $`i`$, $`S(U_i)`$ is not empty, let $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$ be respectively objects of $`S(U_i)`$ and $`S(U_j)`$, we consider a map $`g_{ij}:x_{}^{j}{}_{ij}{}^{}x_{}^{i}{}_{ij}{}^{}`$, the map $`t_{ijk}=g_{ij}g_{jk}g_{ki}`$ of $`Aut(x_{}^{i}{}_{ijk}{}^{})`$ is the classifying $`2`$ Cech cocycle.

Theorem 1. see

Two gerbes defined over $`B`$ with band $`A`$ are isomorphic if and only if their associated $`2`$cocycles define the same cohomological class. Conversely for each $`2`$Cech $`A`$ cocycle $`c`$, one can define a gerbe which associated cocycle is $`c`$.

We define now on $`B`$ the sheaf of categories used to solve our problem. For each open set $`U`$ of $`B`$, we denote by $`C(U)`$ the category which objects are local trivial bundles over $`U`$ which typical fiber is $`F`$, such that the $`Diff(F)`$ bundle associated has a $`G`$reduction. This means that the image of the transitions functions are elements of $`G`$. Moreover we suppose that the quotient of this reduction by $`H`$ is the restriction $`p_{K}^{}{}_{U}{}^{}`$, of $`p_K`$ to $`U`$. A map between two objects of $`C(U)`$, is an isomorphism of bundle which induces a map between their associated principal bundles which pushes forward to the identity of $`p_{K}^{}{}_{U}{}^{}`$. This means that it is an isomorphism which preserves and acts on each fiber by an element of $`H`$.

The map

$$UC(U)$$

defines on $`B`$ a gerbe which band is $`H^{}`$, the sheaf of differentiable $`H`$ functions defined on $`B`$.

Let

$$k_{ij}:U_iU_jK$$

be the the transitions functions of the bundle $`p_K`$ associated to the covering family $`(U_i)_{iI}`$.

Consider a map

$$g_{ij}:U_iU_jG$$

which pushes forward to $`k_{ij}`$. The map $`g_{ij}g_{jk}g_{ki}`$ defines the classifying cocycle $`c_H`$ of the gerbe $`C`$.

We can also defined the principal gerbe $`C_P`$ associated to our problem, for each open set $`U`$ of $`B`$, we will denote by $`C_P(U)`$, the set of locally trivial bundles defined on $`U`$ which typical fiber is $`G`$, and which pushes forward to the restriction of $`p_K`$ to $`U`$.

Connections on principal bundles.

Let $`𝒦`$, $`𝒢`$ and $``$ be respectively the Lie algebra of $`K`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$. A connection on $`p_K`$ is a $`1`$ form $`\omega :TB𝒦`$ such that:

1

For each fundamental vector field $`A_B`$ defined by the element $`A`$ of $`𝒦`$, we have: $`\omega (A_B(x))=A`$,

2

For each element $`g`$ of $`K`$, we have $`\omega (g^{}(X))=Ad(g^1)(X))`$.

The curvature of $`\omega `$ is the $`2`$form $`d\omega +\frac{1}{2}[\omega ,\omega ]`$.

The notion connective structure of the principal gerbe.

Let $`\omega `$ be a connection on $`p_K`$, and $`e_U`$ an element of $`C_P(U)`$, recall that is a principal bundle over $`U`$ which typical fiber is $`G`$. We denote by $`Co(e_U,\omega )`$ the family of connections defined on $`e_U`$ which push forward to the restriction of $`\omega `$ to $`U`$. Consider the map $`p_1:𝒢𝒦`$, and the map $`p_2:e_Up_{K,U}`$ where $`p_{K,U}`$ is the restriction of $`p_K`$ to $`U`$. the fact that the connection $`a`$ defined on $`e_U`$ pushes forward to the restriction $`\omega _U`$ of $`\omega `$ to $`U`$ means that $`p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(w_U)=p_1(a)`$.

The map $`UCo(e_U,\omega )`$ is called the connective structure associated to $`\omega `$.

Supposed that $`((U_i)_{iI},g_{ij})`$ is a trivialization of the bundle $`p_K`$. Let $`e_i`$ be an element of $`C_P(U_i)`$ endowed with a connection $`w_i`$ over the restriction of $`\omega `$ to $`(p_K)_{U_i}`$, the restriction of $`p_K`$ to $`U_i`$.

There exists a map $`g_{ij}`$ between $`e_{ij}^j`$ and $`e_{ij}^i`$ the respective restrictions of $`e_j`$ and $`e_i`$ to $`U_{ij}`$,

Consider the form $`w_jg_{ij}^{}w_i`$, (it pushes forward to a form $`a_{ij}`$ defined on $`TU_{ij}`$ since $`H`$ is central in $`G`$), and $`e_{}^{i}{}_{jk}{}^{}`$ the restriction of $`e_i`$ to $`U_{ijk}`$. On $`U_{ijk}`$, we have the restriction of the forms $`w_jg_{ij}^{}w_i`$, $`w_kg_{jk}^{}w_j`$ and $`w_kg_{ik}^{}w_i`$, define respectively on $`e_{}^{j}{}_{ik}{}^{}`$, $`e_{}^{k}{}_{ij}{}^{}`$, we can define the form

$$g_{jk}^{}(w_jg_{ij}^{}w_i)+(w_kg_{jk}^{}w_j)(w_kg_{ik}^{}w_i)=$$

$$(g_{ij}g_{jk})^{}w_i+g_{ik}^{}w_i=g_{ik}^{}(w_i(g_{ij}g_{jk}g_{ki})^{}w_i)=g_{ik}^{}(w_ic_{ijk}^{}w_i)=c_{ijk}^1dc_{ijk}$$

Proposition 1. The family $`d(a_{ij})`$ is a $`1`$cocycle.

Proof.

On $`U_{ijk}`$, we have $`a_{jk}a_{ik}+a_{ij}=c_{ijk}^1dc_{ijk}`$, since $`d(c_{ijk}^1dc_{ijk})=0`$, we obtain the result.

Consider now the curvature $`K(w_i)`$ of the connection $`w_i`$, it is the form $`w_i+\frac{1}{2}[w_i,w_i]`$. For any other form $`w_i^{}`$ over $`\omega _i`$, let $`a_i=w_iw_i^{}`$, we have $`K(w_i)=K(w_i^{})+da_i`$, this implies that $`dK(w_i)`$ is does not depend of the form over $`\omega _i`$. To set in a conceptual theory, one as to define the cotangent and tangent spaces of the principal gerbe.

Definition 2.

Let $`U`$ be an open set of $`B`$, an element of the tangent space of $`C(U)`$ will be a family of vectors fields $`(X_e)`$ where $`e`$ is an object of $`C(U)`$, such that if $`e`$ and $`f`$ are objects of $`C(U)`$, then there exists a map $`g:ef`$ such that $`Tg(X_e)=X_f`$. An element of the cotangent of will be a family of forms $`(\alpha )_e`$ such that for each vector field $`(X_e)`$, we have $`\alpha _f(X_f)=\alpha _e(X_e)`$, one can define in an obvious way $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}C`$.

A $`n`$tangent field of $`C(U)`$ $`nTC(U)`$ will be a family of of $`n`$vector fields $`((X_e^1,\mathrm{},X_e^n)eObj(C(U))`$ where $`X_e^i`$ is a vector field tangent to the element $`e`$ of $`C(U)`$ such for each object $`e`$ and $`f`$ of $`C(U)`$, there is a map $`g:ef`$ such that $`Tg(X_e^i)=X_f^i`$.

one deduce that the family of $`3`$form $`dK(w_i)`$ define a form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`3TC`$ which takes value in $`𝒢`$ this form is called the curvature of the associated gerbe.

II. The generalization.

Let $`B=F_0,F_1,\mathrm{},F_n`$ be a sequence of manifolds. For each $`F_i`$, we consider a Lie subgroup $`G_i`$ of diffeomorphisms of $`F_i`$, and a central subgroup $`H_i`$ of $`G_i`$. Let denote by $`K_i`$ the quotient of $`G_i`$ by $`H_i`$, we also suppose given locally trivial principal bundles $`p_{K_i}`$ over $`F_{i1}`$ which typical fiber is $`K_i`$. We will denote by $`_i`$, $`𝒢_i`$ and $`𝒦_i`$ the respective Lie algebras of $`H_i`$, $`G_i`$ and $`K_i`$.

We want to study the differentiable geometry of the following problem:

classify sequences $`M_nM_{n1}..M_1M_0=B`$, where each map $`f_i:M_{i+1}M_i`$ is locally trivial differentiable bundle which typical fiber is $`F_{i+1}`$, such that the transitions functions are elements of $`G_{i+1}`$, so we can define a locally trivial principal bundle $`p_{MGii+1}`$ over $`M_i`$ which typical fiber is $`G_{i+1}`$, and consider is quotient $`p_{MKii+1}`$ by $`H_{i+1}`$. We suppose that the restriction $`p_{FKii+1}`$ of $`p_{MGii+1}`$ to a fiber of $`f_{i1}`$ (naturally diffeomorphic to $`F_i`$) is $`p_{K_{i+1}}`$. We will call this problem the $`n`$lifting problem.

We will associate to our problem, a tower of gerbes, and cocycles which will be the obstructions to solve it.

First we define on $`B`$ the gerbe $`C_1`$ associated to the first lifting problem defined by the data $`F_1`$, $`H_1`$, $`G_1`$ and $`K_1`$.

Let $`U`$ be an open set of $`B`$ and $`e_1(U)`$ an element of $`C_1(U)`$, we can associate to $`e_1(U)`$, the gerbe $`C_2(e_1)`$ which solve the first lifting problem which data are $`F_2`$, $`G_2`$ and $`K_2`$, over the basis $`e_1(U)`$. Remark that $`p_{K_2}`$ induces naturally a $`K_2`$principal bundle $`p_{e_1}`$ over $`e_1(U)`$. The quotient of solutions the principal $`G_2`$bundles associated to the solutions of this first lifting problem by $`H_2`$ must be restriction of $`p_{e_1}`$.

Suppose that we have defined the gerbes $`C_1`$, $`C_2(e_1)`$,..,$`C_i(e_{i1})`$, let $`e_i`$ be an object of $`C_i(e_{i1})`$, we define the gerbe $`C_{i+1}(e_i)`$ which solve the first lifting problem associated to $`F_{i+1}`$, $`G_{i+1}`$, $`K_{i+1}`$ with basis $`e_i`$. Remark that $`p_{K_{i+1}}`$ induces naturally a $`K_{i+1}`$principal bundle over $`e_i`$, we denote it by $`p_{e_i}`$ . We suppose that quotient of the principal $`G_{i+1}`$ bundles associated to the solutions of this first lifting problem by $`H_{i+1}`$ are restriction of $`p_{e_i}`$.

We have assumed that the group $`H_i`$ is central in $`G_i`$, let $`(U_{jk}^i,k_{}^{i}{}_{jk}{}^{})`$ be the trivialization of the bundle $`p_{K_i}`$, one defines over $`F_{i1}`$ a locally trivial bundle $`Lie_{ii1}`$ which typical fiber is $`H_i`$ and which trivialization maps are:

$$U_{jk}\times 𝒢_iU_{jk}\times 𝒢_i$$

$$(x,y)(x,Ad(g_{}^{i}{}_{jk}{}^{})(y))$$

where $`g_{}^{i}{}_{jk}{}^{}`$ is an element of $`G_i`$ over $`k_{}^{i}{}_{jk}{}^{}`$.

this sheaf $`Lie_{ii1}`$ is defined for the first lifting problem associated to $`F_i`$, $`H_i`$, $`G_i`$ and $`K_i`$ which basis space is $`F_{i1}`$.

Suppose that we have defined a sheaf over $`B`$, $`Lie_{ii\mathrm{1..1}}(F_i,H_i,G_i)`$ associated to the $`i`$lifting problem defined by the family of groups $`F_1`$,..,$`F_i`$, $`H_1,..,H_i`$, $`G_1,..,G_i`$. We can define the $`i`$lifting problem associated to the family $`F_1^{}=F_1`$,..,$`F_{i1}^{}=F_{i1}`$, $`F_i^{}=Lie_{ii1}`$ $`H_1^{}=H_1,..,H_{i1}^{}=H_{i1},H_i^{}`$, $`G_1,..,G_{i1},G_i^{}`$, where $`G_i^{}`$ and $`H_i^{}`$ are the groups of automorphisms of $`Lie_{ii1}`$ which elements project respectively onto elements of $`G_i`$ and $`H_i`$. We set $`Lie_{i+\mathrm{1..1}}(F_{i+1},G_{i+1},H_{i+1})=Lie_{i\mathrm{..1}}(F_i^{},G_i^{},H_i^{})`$.

The classifying cocycle.

We will now define a $`n+1`$cocycle associated to the tower of gerbes.

For each manifold $`F_i`$, we will consider a trivialization $`((U_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{},k_{}^{i}{}_{j_1j_2}{}^{},jJ)`$ of the bundle $`p_{K_i}`$. Recall that $`B=F_0`$.

For each open set $`U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1}{}^{}`$, consider an object $`e_{}^{1}{}_{j_1}{}^{}`$ of $`C_1(U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1}{}^{})`$. There exists a map $`g_{}^{1}{}_{j_1j_2}{}^{}`$ over $`k_{}^{1}{}_{j_1j_2}{}^{}`$ between the respective restrictions of $`e_{}^{1}{}_{j_2}{}^{}`$ and $`e_{}^{1}{}_{j_1}{}^{}`$ to $`U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1j_2}{}^{}`$.

The map $`c_{}^{1}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}=g_{}^{1}{}_{j_1j_2}{}^{}g_{}^{1}{}_{j_2j_3}{}^{}g_{}^{1}{}_{j_3j_1}{}^{}`$ is an automorphism of $`e_{}^{1}{}_{j_2j_3}{}^{j_1}`$ the restriction of $`e_{j_1}^1`$ to $`U_{j_1j_2j_3}`$ of identified to $`U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}\times F_1`$. the chain $`c_{j_1j_2j_3}`$ can be viewed as a map $`U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}H_1`$. Since $`C_1`$ is a gerbe, the family $`c_{}^{1}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}`$ is a $`2H_1`$ cocycle.

The map $`c_{}^{1}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}`$ acts on the category of open sets of $`U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}\times F_1`$.

The covering which defines the trivialization of $`e_{}^{1}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}`$ can be considered as $`U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1j_2j_3}{}^{}\times U^1`$. The map $`c_{j_1j_2j_3}`$ induces a functor $`(c_{j_1j_2j_3})^{}`$ between the categories $`C_2(U_{j_1j_2j_3}^0\times U^1)`$ and $`C_2(U_{j_1j_2j_3}^0\times c_{j_1j_2j_3}(U^1))`$. Since we have assumed $`H_1`$ central in $`G_1`$, we can consider $`c_{j_2j_3j_4}`$, $`c_{j_1j_3j_4}`$, $`c_{j_1j_2j_4}`$ as morphisms of $`U_{j_1j_2j_3}^0\times F_1`$, this enable to compose the functor $`(c_{j_1j_2j_3})`$ $`(c_{j_2j_3j_4})^{}`$, $`(c_{j_1j_3j_4})^{}`$, $`(c_{j_1j_2j_4})^{}`$, and to define the Cech boundary $`d((c_{j_1j_2j_3})^{})`$.

Since $`c_{j_1j_2j_3}`$ is a $`2`$cocycle, the map $`d((c_{j_1j_2j_3j^1})^{})`$ coincide with the restriction of an element $`c_{j_1j_2j_3j_4}`$ of the set of differentiable functions $`U_{j_1j_2j_3j_4}^0\times U^1H_2`$ wich acts by automorphisms on the elements of the category $`C_2(U_{j_1j_2j_3J_4}\times U^1)`$.

Proposition 1.

The family $`c_{j_1j_2j_3j_4}`$ defines an $`3`$Cech cocycle.

Proof.

We have $`d(c_{j_1j_2j_3j_4})=_{i=1}^{i=5}(1)^ic_{j_1..\widehat{j}_i..j_5}=_{i=1}^{i=5}(1)^i_{k=1}^{k=3}(1)^k(c_{j_1..\widehat{j}_k..\widehat{j}_i..})^{}=0`$.

Supposed now define the $`i+1`$ cocycle associated to the $`i`$lifting problem. It is a family of maps $`c_{j_1..j_{i+2}}:U_{}^{0}{}_{j_1..j_{i+2}}{}^{}\times ..\times U^{i1}\times F_i`$. The map $`c_{j_1..j_{i+2}}`$ defines a functor $`c(_{j_1..j_{i+2}})^{}`$ between the categories $`C_{i+1}(U_{j_1..j_{i+2}}\times U^1\times ..\times U^i)`$, and the category $`C_{i+1}(U_{j_1..j_{i+2}}\times U^1\times ..\times U^ic_{j_1..j_{i+2}}(U^i))`$, where $`U^i`$ is an open set of $`F_i`$. Since we have supposed that $`H_i`$ is central in $`G_i`$, we can consider the Cech boundary $`d(c_{j_1..j_{i+2}})^{}`$. Since the map $`c_{j_1..j_{i+2}}`$ is an $`i`$cocycle, we can consider $`d(c_{j_1..j_{i+3}})^{}`$ as a differentiable map $`c_{j_1..j_{i+3}}:U_{j_1..j_{i+3}}\times U^1..\times U^iH_{i+1}`$.

Proposition 2. The family of maps $`c_{j_1..j_{i+3}}`$ define an $`j+2`$ cocycle.

Proof.

We have

$$d(c_{j_1..j_{i+3}})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{k=i+4}{}}(1)^kc_{j_1.\widehat{j}_kj_{i+4}}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{k=i+4}{}}(1)^k\underset{l=1}{\overset{l=i+3}{}}(1)^l(c_{i_1..\widehat{j}_l..\widehat{j}_k..j_{i+4}})^{}=0$$

We have seen how to each $`n`$lifting problem one can associate a $`n+1`$cocycle $`H_n`$ cocycle, is it true that fact conversely to each $`n+1H_n`$, one can define a $`n+1`$ lifting problem which $`n+1`$ classifying cocycle is the given cocycle? if not which conditions must satisfy and $`n+1`$cocycle to be the classifying cocycle of a $`n+1`$lifting problem? We will first study the first lifting problem. Recall that if we have the following exact sequence $`1S_1S_2S_31`$ of sheaves defined on $`B`$ such that $`S_1`$ is a commutative sheaf, there exists the following exact sequence in cohomology.

$$0H^0(B,S_1)H^0(B,S_2)H^0(B,S_3)$$

$$H^1(B,S_1)H^1(B,S_2)H^1(B,S_3)H^2(B,S_3)$$

denote by $`\delta _1`$ the map $`H^1(B,S_3)H^2(B,S_3)`$, we have

Proposition 3.

A $`2`$$`H_1`$cocycle $`c_{H_1}`$ defined on $`B`$ is the classying cocycle of a first lifting problem, if and only if there exists an element $`c_{K_1}`$ of $`H^1(B,K_1)`$ such that $`c_{H_1}=\delta _1(c_{K_1})`$.

Proof.

Its enough to remark that each $`c_{K_1}`$ cocycle $`c`$ define a principal bundle over $`B`$, such that $`\delta _1(c)`$ is the classifying cocycle of the first lifting problem associated to this bundle.

Remark.

Saying that $`\delta _1(c_{K_1})=c_{H_1}`$ means that $`c_{H_1}`$ is deduced from $`c_{K_1}`$ in the same way that $`\delta _1`$ is defined.

Generally the map $`\delta _1`$ is not injective. To see this consider a $`G`$principal bundle $`p_G`$ over $`B`$, $`H`$ a central subgroup of $`G`$. Denote by $`K`$ the quotient of $`G`$ by $`H`$ and by $`c`$ the cocycle which defines the quotient $`p_K`$ of $`p_G`$ by $`H`$, then $`\delta _1(c)`$ is trivial.

Now suppose that the sheaves $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ are commutative, we can write the following long exact sequence

$$0H^0(B,S_1)H^0(B,S_2)H^0(B,S_3)$$

$$H^1(B,S_1)H^1(B,S_2)H^1(B,S_3)H^2(B,S_1)$$

$$..H^n(B,S_1)H^n(B,S_2)H^n(B,S_3)H^n(B,S_3)$$

denote by $`\delta _n`$ the map $`H^n(B,S_3)H^{n+1}(B,S_3)`$, we have

Proposition 4.

The $`n+1`$ cocycle $`c_{H_n}`$ of the $`n`$lifting problem is the image of $`c_{H_{n1}}`$ by $`\delta _n`$

Proof.

Straightforward computations.

Definition 1.

We will say that the $`n+1`$tower is trivial, if and only if its associated cocycle $`c_{H_n}`$ vanishes.

The principal tower of gerbes associated.

We will define the notion of connective structure and curvature related to the tower of gerbes associated to our problem. First we define the principal tower associated to our problem.

Recall that we can associate to $`C_1`$ a principal gerbe $`C_{1P}`$ defined as follows:

Let $`U`$ be an open set of $`B`$, we consider the category $`C_{1P}(U)`$ of $`G_1`$ principal bundles over $`U`$ such that the quotient of each of its elements by $`H_1`$ is the restriction of $`p_{K_1}`$ to $`U`$,

Let $`e_1(U)`$ be an element of $`C_1(U)`$, we consider an open set $`U^1`$ of $`e_1(U)`$, and an element $`e_2`$ of $`C_2(U^1)`$, it is an $`F_2`$ bundle over $`U^1`$, we denote by $`p_{U^1}:e_2U^1`$, the canonical projection, we denote by $`p_{1U}:U^1U`$ the restriction of the canonical projection of $`e_1(U)`$ to $`U^1`$.

We can also defined over $`e_2`$ the principal bundle $`e_{2P}`$ associated to the first lifting problem defined by $`F_2`$, $`H_2`$ and $`G_2`$ which typical fiber is $`G_2`$, the elements of the category $`C_{2P}(U^1)`$, are fiber product over $`p_{1U}(U^1)`$ of $`e_{2P}`$ and $`e_{1P}`$, where $`e_{1P}`$ is a principal bundle over $`p_{1U}(U^1)`$ associated to the first lifting problem defined by the data $`F_1`$, $`H_1`$ and $`G_1`$. Suppose that $`U^1=V\times V^1`$ where $`V`$ and $`V^1`$ are open sets of respectively $`B`$ and $`F_1`$ such that the respective restriction of $`p_{K_1}`$ and $`p_{K_2}`$ to $`V`$ and $`V^1`$ are trivial. Then the elements of $`C_{2P}(U^1)`$ are isomorphic to $`(V\times G_1)\times (V_1\times G_2)`$. The set of morphisms of elements of $`C_{2P}(U^1)`$ is given by the natural action of $`H_2`$.

Suppose defined the category $`C_{iP}(U^{i1})`$, where $`U^{i1}`$ is an open set of an element $`C_{i1}(U^{i2})`$, let $`U^i`$ be an open set of an object of $`C_i(U^{i1})`$, we can define on $`U^i`$ the principal bundle $`e_{i+1P}`$ which solve the first lifting problem associated to $`F_{i+1}`$, $`G_{i+1}`$ and $`H_{i+1}`$. It is a principal bundle $`e_{iP}`$ over $`U^i`$ which typical fiber is $`G_{i+1}`$, denote by $`p_{iU}`$ the canonical map $`p_{iU}:U^iU^{i1}`$, the elements of $`C_{i+1P}(U^i)`$, are fiber product of $`e_{iP}`$ and $`e_{i1P}`$ over $`p_{iU}(U^{i1})`$ where $`e_{i1P}`$ is an element of $`C_{iP}(p_{iU}(U^i))`$. The automorphisms group of elements of $`C_{i+1P}(U^i)`$ are induced by the action of $`H_{i+1}`$.

Locally, an object of $`C_{iP}(U^{i1})`$ is of the form $`U\times G_1\times (U^1\times G_2)\times ..\times (U^{i1}\times G_i)`$.

Definition 1.

The $`n`$tangent space of the tower of gerbes $`C_P`$, will be the disjoint unions of the tangent space of the gerbes $`C_{iP}`$.

The differential geometry of the principal tower of gerbes.

Suppose defined on each bundle $`p_{K_i}`$ a connection $`w_i`$. We have already define the notion of connective structure for the first lifting problem. Recall that for each element $`e_1`$ of $`C_{1P}(U)`$, it is the family of connections defined on $`e_1`$ which project to the restriction of $`w_1`$ to the restriction of $`p_{K_1}`$ to $`U`$.

Suppose defined the notion of connective structure for the $`i`$lifting problem, for each object $`e_{iP}`$ of $`C_{iP}(U^{i1})`$, (we can suppose $`e_{iP}`$ to be isomorphic to $`U\times G_1\times (U^1\times G_2)\times ..\times (U^{i1}\times G_i)`$) it is a family of connection defined on $`e_{iP}`$, for an element $`e_{i+1P}`$ of $`C_{i+1P}(U^i)`$, we will defined the the set $`Co(e_{i+1P})`$, as the set of $`G_1\times ..\times G_{i+1}`$connections which project to elements of $`Co(e_i(p_{iU}(U^i))`$, where $`e_i(p_{U_i}(U^i))`$ is the canonical projection of $`e_{i+1P}`$ over an element of $`C_{iP}((p_{iU})(U_i))`$, consider the projection of $`U^i`$ to $`F_i`$, and the restriction $`p_{UK_i}`$ of $`p_{K_i}`$ to the image of the last projection, we suppose also that elements of $`Co(e_{i+1P})`$ project to the restriction of $`w_{i+1}`$.

If this element is isomorphic to $`U\times G_1\times ..\times U^{i1}\times G_i`$, then an element of $`Co(e_{iP})`$ is a connection which project to a connection of $`Co(e_{i1P})`$, where $`e_{i1P}=U\times G_1\times ..\times U^{i2}\times G_{i2}`$ and which project to a connection of $`U^{i1}\times G_i`$, which project to the restriction of $`w_i`$ to $`U^{i1}\times K_i`$.

The sequence of curvatures associated.

For the gerbe associated to the first lifting problem, we have already defined the curvature, it is a $`Lie(1)`$ $`3`$form. Let us recall it’s definition.

Consider a trivialization $`(U_{i_1},k_{i_1i_2})`$ of the bundle $`p_{K_1}`$, over $`U_{i_1}\times G_1`$ we choose a connection $`w_{i_1}`$ which project to the restriction of $`w_1`$ to $`U_{i_1}\times G_1`$, we consider the curvature $`K(w_{i_1})`$ of this connection, then $`dK(w_{i_1})`$ defines the requested $`3`$form.

Consider now an element $`e_i`$ of $`C_{iP}(U^{i1})`$, isomorphic to $`U_{j_1..j_{i+3}}\times G_1\times (U^1\times G_2)\times ..\times (U^{i1}\times G_i)`$, and $`\widehat{w}_i`$ an element of $`Co(e_i)`$, if $`\widehat{w}_i^{}`$ is another element of $`Co(e_i)`$, then $`\widehat{w}_i\widehat{w}_i^{}`$ is an $`H_1..H_n`$ form $`a`$, we have $`K(w_i)=K(w_i^{})+da`$, this implies that $`d(K(w_i))`$ is independent of the chosen element of $`Co(e_i)`$ over $`w_i`$

Definition 2.

The form curvature $`dK(\widehat{w}_i)`$, defines a $`3`$form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ on $`3TC_{iP}(U^{i1})`$.

III. Holonomy and parallel displacement.

We will precise the differential geometry of the $`n`$lifting problem by defining notions of holonomy and covariant derivative.

Suppose given a connection $`\omega `$ on $`p_{K_1}`$, for each open set $`U`$ of $`B`$ and each couple of objects $`(e_1,e_2)`$ of objects of $`C_1(U)`$, one can consider connections $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ defined respectively on $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ which push forward to the restriction of $`\omega `$ to the restriction of $`p_{K_1}`$ to $`U`$, unfortunately each isomorphism between $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ does not transforms $`\omega _1`$ to $`\omega _2`$. To avoid this problem, we are going to enlarge the distribution which defines the connection $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$, to a transitive uniform distribution studied by P. Molino in his thesis, this distribution will behave naturally in respect to the morphisms between objects, generalizing the work of the previous author, will define first, the notion of holonomy and covariant derivative for the principal gerbe $`C_1`$ and generalizing those notions for the principal tower associated to the last $`n`$lifting problem. First let recall some results from the work of P. Molino.

Let $`p:EB`$, be a $`K`$principal locally trivial bundle over $`B`$ which typical fiber is $`K`$, a transitive distribution $`𝒟`$ (TD) on $`E`$ will be a right invariant distribution defined on $`E`$ such that $`d_xp(𝒟_x)=T_{p(x)}B`$.

We will denote by $`u`$ be the map defined by $`u(X)=A`$, where $`X`$ a vertical vector tangent to $`x`$ and $`A`$ the element of $`𝒦`$ such that $`A^{}(x)=X`$, where $`A^{}`$ is the fundamental vector field defined by $`A`$. We will also denote $`V_x`$ the subset of vertical vector fields at $`x`$. The transitive distribution is said to be freely uniform, if $`u(𝒟V_x)`$ does not depend of $`x`$, this image is thus a normal subgroup $`L`$ of $`K`$.

In the sequel, we will only consider free transitive uniform distributions.

Definition 1.

An horizontal curve of $`𝒟`$ is a curve $`c:IE`$ such that, $`c^{}(t)=\frac{d}{dt}c(t)`$ is an element of $`𝒟_{c(t)}.`$

Let, $`x`$ be an element of $`E`$, the holonomy group of $`𝒟`$ at $`x`$, is the set of elements $`k`$ of $`K`$ such that $`x`$ and $`xk^1`$ can be joined by an horizontal curve.

Let denote by $`M`$ the quotient of $`K`$ by $`L`$, $`U:KM`$ the projection map, and $`d:𝒦`$ the induced Lie algebra morphism, one can define on $`E`$, a $`1`$ $`M`$ form as follows, each element $`v`$ of $`T_xE`$ can be written $`v=v_1+v_2`$, where $`v_1`$ is vertical, and $`v_2`$ is an element of $`𝒟_x`$, this decomposition is not unique unless that $`𝒟`$ is a connection, but the projection $`\omega (v)`$ of $`u(v_1)`$ to $``$ defined on $`E`$ a $`1`$form which kernel is $`𝒟`$.

Let $`V`$ be a vector space endowed with a $`K`$action defined by the representation $`S:KGl(V)`$, we will denote by $`s:𝒦gl(V)`$ the induced Lie algebras representation, by $`V^{}`$ the quotient of $`V`$ by $`s()`$, and by $`s^{}:VV^{}`$ the projection map where $``$ is the Lie algebra of $`L`$. We consider a $`p`$tensorial form $`\alpha :TEV`$. We denote $`\dot{\alpha }`$, the $`V^{}`$ $`p`$tensorial form defined by $`\dot{\alpha }(v_1,..,v_p)=s^{}(\alpha (v_1,\mathrm{},v_p))`$ where $`v_1,..,v_p`$ are elements of $`T_xE`$, write $`v_i=w_1^i+w_2^i`$, where $`w_1^i`$ is an vertical vector and $`w_2^i`$ is an element of $`𝒟_x`$ we will define the covariant derivative, $`_𝒟`$ of $`\dot{\alpha }`$ by $`_𝒟(v_1,\mathrm{},v_p)=s^{}(d\dot{\alpha }(w_2^1,\mathrm{},w_2^p))`$.

We have the formula $`_𝒟(\dot{\alpha })=d\dot{\alpha }+\omega \dot{\alpha }`$. We will denote by $`_D\dot{\omega }`$, the curvature of $`𝒟`$.

We will now apply this notion of TD to the tower of gerbe. First we consider the case of the gerbe $`C_1`$. Let endow $`p_{K_1}`$ with a connection $`w_1`$ and consider an object $`e_1`$ of $`C_1(U)`$, where $`U`$ is an open set of $`B`$. We can define on $`e_1`$ the transitive distribution $`𝒟_{1}^{}{}_{e_1}{}^{}`$, the pull-back of the distribution which define the connection $`w_1`$ by the canonical map $`e_1p_{K_1}^{}{}_{U}{}^{}`$, if $`e_1^{}`$ is an other object of $`C(U)`$, then each map $`f:e_1e_1^{}`$ transforms $`𝒟_{1}^{}{}_{e_1}{}^{}`$ to $`𝒟_{1}^{}{}_{e_1^{}}{}^{}`$. The TD $`𝒟_{e_1}`$ is uniform, its uniform group is $`H_1`$.

Definition 2.

For each element $`z`$ of $`e_1`$, we will denote by $`Hol(z,e_1,\omega ,w_1)`$, the holonomy group of the transitive distribution $`𝒟_{e_1}`$ in $`z`$. Since we have supposed $`H_1`$ to be central in $`G_1`$, this group depends only of the projection of $`z`$ to $`p_{K_1}`$.

The holonomy of the tower.

We will define recursively the notion of holonomy of the tower of gerbe, by defining on each element of $`C_{i+1P}(U^i)`$ a free transitive distribution. We suppose defined on each bundle $`p_{K_i}`$ a connection $`w_i`$.

Let $`U^1`$ be an open set of $`e_1`$, recall and object $`e_{U^1}^2`$ of $`C_{2P}(U^1)`$, are fibers product over $`p_{1U}(U^1)`$, of $`e_{2P}`$ and $`e_{1P}`$, where $`e_{2P}`$ is a principal bundle associated to an object of $`C_2(U^1)`$ associated to the first lifting problem defined by $`H_2`$, $`F_2`$ and $`G_2`$, and $`e_{1P}`$ is the principal bundle over $`p_{1U}(U^1)`$ of the first lifting problem associated to the data $`H_1`$, $`F_1`$ and $`G_1`$.

We have two canonical projections $`f_1:e_{U^1}^2e_{1P}`$, and $`f_2:e_{U^1}^2e_{2P}`$.

The connection $`w_2`$ on $`p_{K_2}`$ can be pull back to a connection $`w_2^{}`$ on the quotient of $`e_{2P}`$ by $`H_2`$. Denote by $`X_{e_{2P}}`$ the pull back to $`e_{2P}`$ of the distribution which defines the connection $`w_2^{}`$ to $`e_{2P}`$, we will define

$$𝒟_{2}^{}{}_{e_{U^1}^2}{}^{}=f_1^{}𝒟_{1}^{}{}_{e_{1P}}{}^{}+f_2^{}X_{e_{2P}}.$$

Definition 3.

Let $`z`$ be an element of $`e_{U^1}^2`$. We denote by $`Hol(e_{U^1}^2,𝒟_2,z,w_1,w_2)`$ the holonomy of the transitive distribution $`𝒟_{2}^{}{}_{e_{U^1}^2}{}^{}`$ in $`z`$.

Suppose defined the distribution $`𝒟_{i}^{}{}_{e_{iP}}{}^{}`$ and the holonomy $`Hol(e_{iP},𝒟_i,z,w_1,..,w_i)`$ where is an element of the object $`e_{iP}`$, of $`C_{iP}(U^{i1})`$.

Recall that an object $`e^{i+1}`$ of $`C_{i+1P}(U^i)`$ is a fiber product over $`p_{iU}(U^i)`$ of $`e_{iP}`$ and $`e_{i+1P}`$, where $`e_{iP}`$ is an element of $`C_{iP}(U^{i1})`$, and $`e_{i+1P}`$ is a bundle over $`U^i`$ which solve the first lifting problem associated to $`F_{i+1}`$, $`H_{i+1}`$ and $`G_{i+1}`$, we have the canonical projection $`f_1:e^{i+1}e_{iP}`$, and $`f_2:e^{i+1}e_{i+1P}`$. The connection $`w_{i+1}`$ on $`p_{K_{i+1}}`$ induces on the quotient of $`e_{i+1P}`$ by $`H_{i+1}`$ a connection $`\omega _{i+1}^{}`$. Denote by $`X_{i+1}`$ the pull back of the distribution which defines the connection $`\omega _{i+1}^{}`$ to $`e_{i+1P}`$, we can define

$$𝒟_{i+1}^{}{}_{e^{i+1}}{}^{}=f_1^{}(𝒟_{i}^{}{}_{e_{iP}}{}^{})+f_2^{}(X_{i+1}).$$

Definition 4.

For each element $`z`$ of $`e^{i+1}`$, we denote by $`Hol(e^{i+1},𝒟_{i+1},z,w_1,..,w_{i+1})`$, the holonomy of the transitive distribution $`𝒟_{i+1}^{}{}_{e^{i+1}}{}^{}`$ in $`z`$.

Parallel Displacement.

We will define the notion of parallel displacement for the tower of gerbes.

Definition 5.

Given a connection $`w_1`$ on the principal bundle $`p_{K_1}`$, and $`z`$ $`c:I=[0,1]p_{K_1}`$ a differentiable curve, A field $`X`$ is parallel along $`c`$, if and only if $`_{w_1}^{}{}_{\frac{d}{dt}c(t)}{}^{}X(c(t))=0`$, where $`_{w_1}`$ is the covariant derivative associated to the connection $`w_1`$.

The parallel displacement along $`c`$, is the map $`s_{c(t)}:T_{c(0)p_{K_1}}T_{c(1)}p_{K_1}`$ such that $`s_{c(t)}(v_0)`$ is the vector $`v_1`$ of $`T_{c(1)}p_{K_1}`$ such that $`v_0=X(c(0)),v_1=X(c(1))`$ where $`X`$ is a parallel vector field defined on $`c`$, (we suppose $`c`$ endowed the pull-back of the connection $`w_1`$).

Definition 6.

Consider an object $`e_k`$ of the category $`C_{kP}(U^k)`$ of the principal tower, and a connection $`\omega `$ of $`Co(e_k)`$. For each element $`z`$ of $`e_k`$, for each curve $`c:I=[0,1]e_k`$, one can define the parallel displacement $`s_{c,\omega }`$ along $`c`$, the parallel displacement along $`c`$ is the set of maps $`s_{c,\omega },\omega Co(e_k)`$.

Bibliography.

 Brylinski, J.L Loops spaces, Characteristic Classes and Geometric Quantization, Progr. Math. 107, Birkhauser, 1993.

 Brylinski, J.L, Mc Laughlin D.A, The geometry of degree four characteristic classes and of line bundles on loop spaces I. Duke Math. Journal. 75 (1994) 603-637.

 Deligne, P. Theorie de Hod ge III, Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 44 (1974), $`577`$.

 Giraud, J. Cohomologie non abélienne. Grundl. Math. Wiss. 179, Springer-Verlag.

 Goettsche, L. Hilbert Schemes. Lecture note in Mathematics

 Meinrenken, E. The basic gerbe of a compact simple Lie group. Preprint

 Molino, P. Champs d’éléments sur un espace fibré principal différentiable. Ann. Inst. Fourier 14 (1964) 163-220.

 Murray, M.K., Stevenson, Bundle gerbes: Stable isomorphisms and local theory. J. London. Math. Soc (2) 62 (2000) 925-937

 Perea Medina, A. Flat left-invariant connections adapted to the automorphism structure of a Lie group, J. Differential Geometry, 16 (1981) 445-474.

 Tsemo, A. Non abelian cohomology an application Preprint.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

When a mesoscopic wire made of normal metal N is in contact with a superconducting reservoir S, Andreev reflection (AR) occurs . This affects the electronic properties of the wire . In this article we address both experimentally and theoretically the following question: how does Andreev reflection manifest itself in shot noise measurements, and what physics can we deduce from such measurements ? Our discussion will rely on high frequency measurements performed on various NS structures, that can be found in refs. .

The shot noise is a direct consequence of the granularity of the electric charge. Even though an electric current exists only if there are free charged carriers, the value of this charge does not directly affect how much current flows through a sample when biased at a finite voltage. One has to investigate the fluctuations of the current to determine the charge of the carriers. As a consequence the measurement of the shot noise offers direct access to the elementary excitations of any system, through the determination of their effective charge. An effective charge different from $`1e`$ directly reflects how, due to their interactions, the electrons are correlated, as in a superconductor, a 2D electron gas in the fractionnal quantum Hall regime or a 1D Luttinger liquid.

In an NS system, electrons can enter the superconductor only in pairs. Thus, the elementary charge participating in the electric current is no longer $`e`$, but $`2e`$. Thus, a naive expectation is that the shot noise should be doubled in the presence of an NS interface, as compared to the case of a normal metal. In the following we explore this expectation, to see how Andreev reflection affects current noise. In particular we show how a deviation of the effective charge from $`2e`$ reflects the existence of correlations among *pairs* of electrons.

In equilibrium the current noise power $`S_I`$ is given by the Johnson-Nyquist formula, which relates the current fluctuations to the conductance of the sample $`G`$: $`S_I(V=0,T)=4k_BTG`$, where $`T`$ is the electron temperature. Whether the fluctuating current is made of single electrons or pairs affects equilibrium noise only through the conductance, which may depend on the state (N or S) of the metal. This picture is valid at low frequency ($`\mathrm{}\omega k_BT`$). It is the ’classical’ regime. At finite frequency $`\omega `$ a quantum mechanical treatment of noise is necessary. The general expression for the equilibrium current noise is given in terms of the reduced frequency $`w=\mathrm{}\omega /(2k_BT)`$ by :

$$S_I(V=0,T,\omega )=4k_BTG(T,\omega )g(w)$$
(1)
where the function $`g(x)`$ is defined as: $`g(x)=x\text{coth}x`$. As in the classical regime, all the physics is contained in the conductance $`G`$, but here $`G`$ is the real part of the complex and frequency dependent admittance of the sample. The $`g(w)`$ term accounts for statistical distribution of an excitation of energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ at thermal equilibrium. Through $`g(w)`$ the finite frequency adds an energy scale at which the classical-to-quantum noise crossover takes place: $`\mathrm{}\omega =2k_BT`$, or $`w=1`$.

Since we are interested here in shot noise, let us discuss first the case of the normal tunnel junction. The shot noise of the tunnel junction at low frequency is given by :

$$S_I^{tunnel}(V,\omega =0,T)=4k_BTGg(v)$$
(2)
with the reduced voltage $`v=qV/(2k_BT)`$. Here $`g(v)`$ interpolates between Johnson noise ($`g(0)=1`$) and shot noise ($`g(v1)=v`$). Hence the charge $`q`$ appears at two levels: it can be measured through the equilibrium-to-shot noise crossover occuring at $`qV=2k_BT`$, or through the magnitude of the noise at high voltage, such that $`S_I^{tunnel}=2qI`$. At finite frequency, the noise emitted by a tunnel junction is:

$$S_I^{tunnel}(V,\omega ,T)=2k_BTG(g(v+w)+g(vw))$$
(3)
Thus, a finite frequency investigation offers another way to measure $`q`$, through the classical-to-quantum noise crossover occuring at $`qV=\mathrm{}\omega `$.

In the case of a diffusive mesoscopic wire, the shot noise is reduced by the disorder, but the principles above are still valid. Thus, AR should show up in the *shape* of the noise spectrum as a doubling of the classical-to-quantum noise crossover frequency, occuring at $`\mathrm{}\omega =2eV`$. To perform such a measurement as a function of frequency, one needs to have a precise knowledge of $`G(\omega )`$ and of the frequency response of the experimental setup at high frequencies. (For example, $`T=100`$mK corresponds to $`V=8.6\mu `$V and $`\omega /2\pi =2.1`$GHz.) As a consequence, the direct measurement of the frequency dependence of the noise spectrum at fixed voltage has never been accomplished. The noise measured in a narrow frequency band is expected to show the same crossover, but as a function of the applied voltage. This is a much easier (but still difficult) experiment, which we shall report in section 3. The measurement has been performed so far on a normal metal wire, but could also be carried out on an NS sample. In Section 4 we report measurements of photon assisted noise in an NS wire, which provide an alternative to the measurement of the crossover frequency. In this experiment a high frequency excitation is applied to the sample. The shot noise develops features as a function of voltage $`V`$ each time $`qV`$ is a multiple of the energy of the incident photons $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. For the NS wire, $`q=2e`$.

The discussion above treats the consequences of the AR due to the energy $`qV`$, as compared to $`k_BT`$ or $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. It investigates the effect of AR on the *distribution statistics* of the electronic excitations (which involve pairs of electrons) rather than the *effective charge* they carry. Specifically , the phenomena that have been measured and discussed above are related to steps in the distribution function, as will be discussed in section 6. A better measurement of the effective charge is in the fully developed shot noise regime ($`eVk_BT`$). Here the noise is determined by the fact that electrons are paired and also by the interferences and the correlations that can exist among pairs. In section 5 we report measurements of phase dependent shot noise in an Andreev interferometer, which point out such a sensitivity of the effective charge to pair correlations. Section 6 is devoted to the theoretical investigation of the effective charge deduced from the shot noise. Section 2 contains information about sample preparation and experimental setup, common to the experiments reported in subsequent sections.

## 2 Experimental considerations

The experiments we report in the next sections use samples prepared with similar methods, and measured with similar detection schemes. Each sample consists of a metallic wire or loop between two metallic reservoirs, either normal or superconducting. The measurements are performed through contacts to the two reservoirs. This allows dc characterization of the sample (two-contact differential resistance $`R_{diff}=dV/dI`$, measured at $`200`$Hz) as well as high frequency measurements. Even for the measurement of the effective charge of the Andreev interferometer, which does not intrinsically call for the use of rf techniques, high frequency measurements have been chosen for their extremely high sensitivity (the signal-to-noise ratio is proportionnal to the square root of the bandwidth times the integration time of each measurement).

The measurements were performed in a dilution refrigerator at a mixing chamber temperature $`T50`$ mK. At low temperature the electron energy relaxation is dominated by electron-electron interactions  and the associated inelastic length $`L_{ee}`$ is larger than $`L`$, so the transport in the device is elastic. We have not conducted weak localization measurements on these samples. From these, the phase coherence length $`L_\phi `$ could have been extracted ($`L_{ee}`$ and $`L_\phi `$ coincide if the dominant phase relaxation mechanism is electron-electron interaction, which is likely in our samples, otherwise $`L_{ee}>L_\phi `$) . Nevertheless, we observe significant harmonic content of the $`R`$ vs. flux curve of the interferometer (data not shown). The nth harmonics decays as exp$`(nL/L^{}(T))`$, where $`L`$ is the distance between the two reservoirs. The empirical characteristic length $`L^{}`$ includes phase beaking mechanisms ($`L_\phi `$) as well as thermal averaging (usually described by the thermal length $`L_T=(\mathrm{}D/k_BT)^{1/2}`$). We obtain $`L^{}(T=50`$mK$`)=800`$nm of the order of $`L_T`$, which implies that $`L_\phi L_T`$, i.e., $`L_\phi `$ is much larger than the sample size $`L=540`$nm. Other measurements on a longer interferometer ($`L1\mu `$m) also gave evidence that $`L_{ee}>L`$ in that device. The wires described in sections 3 and 4 are shorter and thus are also likely in the regime $`L<L_\phi `$.

### 2.1 Sample preparation

The samples studied have been patterned by e-beam lithography. All are made of thin ($`10`$nm) evaporated gold wires between thick metallic reservoirs. The N wire and N reservoirs are deposited using a double angle evaporation technique  in a single vacuum pump down. Sputtered Nb is used for the thick ($`80`$ nm) S reservoirs. The transparency of the NS interface has been achieved by ion beam cleaning before Nb deposition. We estimate that the interface resistance is less than $`1/10`$ of the wire resistance. Theoretical calculations which consider this extra resistance show that its effect is negligible. The Au wires have a temperature independent sheet resistance of the order of $`10\mathrm{\Omega }`$ per square. The Au reservoirs are $`70`$ nm thick and have a sheet resistance of less than $`0.5\mathrm{\Omega }`$ per square.

### 2.2 Experimental setup for high frequency noise measurements

The experimental setup we used to perform the noise measurements on the Andreev interferometer is depicted in fig. 2. The current fluctuations $`S_I`$ in the sample are measured in a frequency band $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ from $`1.25`$ to $`1.75`$GHz using an impedance matched cryogenic HEMT amplifier. The noise emitted by the sample passes through a cold circulator, employed to isolate the sample from amplifier emissions. It is then amplified by the cryogenic amplifier and rectified at room temperature after further amplification. The detected power is thus given by $`P_{det}=G\mathrm{\Delta }f(k_BT_{out}+k_BT_A)`$ where $`G`$ is the gain of the amplification chain, $`T_A6.5`$K is the noise temperature of the amplifier, and $`T_{out}`$ is the effective temperature corresponding to the noise power coming from the sample ($`T_{out}=0.040.6`$K for $`V=0150\mu `$V for the case of an NS interface). We determine $`G\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ and $`T_A`$ by measuring the sample’s Johnson noise vs. temperature at $`V=0`$ and its shot noise at $`eV(k_BT,E_C)`$. ($`E_c=\mathrm{}D/L^2`$ is the Thouless energy of a diffusive wire of length $`L`$; it is the energy corresponding to the inverse of the diffusion time along the wire). We modulate the current through the sample to suppress the contribution of $`T_A`$. We measure $`dP_{det}/dI`$. This gives $`dT_{out}/dI`$. $`T_{out}`$ is related to the noise emitted by the sample through:

$$T_{out}=(1|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2)T_N+|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2T_{in}$$
(4)
and $`S_I`$ is given by $`S_I=4k_BT_N\text{Re}Z_{diff}^1`$. Here $`T_N`$ is the sample’s noise temperature, $`Z_{diff}`$ is the complex differential impedance of the sample at the measurement frequency, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the amplitude reflection coefficient of the sample and $`T_{in}`$ the external noise incoming to the sample. In eq. (4), the first term on the right represents the noise emitted by the sample which is coupled to the amplifier. The second term represents the external noise the sample reflects.

In order to determine $`S_I`$ at finite frequency, it is necessary to know both $`Z_{diff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at the measurement frequency. $`Z_{diff}`$ is deduced from the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ through:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=\frac{Z_{diff}(\omega )Z_0(\omega )}{Z_{diff}(\omega )+Z_0(\omega )}$$
(5)
where $`Z_0`$ the impedance of the measurement apparatus. $`Z_0`$ is ideally real and equal to $`50\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In practice it has an imaginary part and is frequency dependent (due to finite return loss of the amplifier or isolator, parasitic capacitance in parallel with the sample, inductance of the wire bond, etc.). Thus a careful calibration is necessary to have a reliable measurement of $`Z_{diff}`$. However, since our samples have a resistance close to $`50\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the amplitude of $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2`$ is of the order of a few percent, and can be neglected in the first term of eq. (4). This is not always the case for the second term. In the measurement performed on the normal wire (section 3), no circulator was used. $`T_{in}30KT_N`$ for this broadband (20 GHz) amplifier. The impedance of the sample (a very short gold wire) is voltage and frequency independent, so that the noise reflected by the sample adds up to the total as a voltage independent (but frequency dependent) constant. ($`T_{in}`$ depends on frequency because the amplifier emission does). For the NS wire (section 4), a circulator placed in liquid helium has been used. The circulator attenuates by 20dB the noise emitted by the narrowband amplifier towards the sample ($`T_{emit}2`$K). In that case $`T_{in}`$ is equal to the temperature $`T=4`$K of the $`50\mathrm{\Omega }`$ termination of the circulator. $`T_{in}=(T_{emit}/100)+4K>T_{emit}`$, but $`T_{emit}`$ drifts, which adds drift to the measurement. For this experiment one was interested only in the voltage dependence of the features of $`S_I`$, the corrections due to $`T_{in}`$ were not significant.

For the precise measurement of the effective charge in the Andreev interferometer, the magnitude of $`S_I`$ is of interest; it is thus crucial for $`T_{in}`$ to be minimized and stable. For this experiment we therefore placed the circulator at $`T=50`$mK. We also measured the variations of $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2`$ by sending white noise to the sample through the unidirectionnal coupler (see fig. 2) and detecting the change in the noise power. This determines the relative variation of the amplitude of the reflection coefficient (as a function of voltage or magnetic flux) over the bandwidth used for the noise measurement. We draw the following conclusions: i) the variations of $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2`$ are small enough to be neglected, allowing us to take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ in the data analysis. This is confirmed by the fact that at $`V=0`$, where $`T_N=T`$, $`R_{diff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ are flux dependent; yet $`T_{out}`$ at $`V=0`$, does not depend on the flux (see eq.(4)); ii) the impedance of the sample at the measurement frequency is different from its dc value. This conclusion is seen from the following : if $`Z_{diff}(\omega )`$ were equal to its dc value $`R_{diff}=dV/dI`$, then whatever $`Z_0(\omega )`$ is (i.e. whatever the imperfections of the experiment are), $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2`$ plotted as a function of $`R_{diff}`$ should collapse into a single curve for all the values of flux and voltage. As shown on fig. 3, this doesn’t occur. This means that the impedance of the sample is not equal to $`R_{diff}=dV/dI`$ measured at low frequency. It has an flux- or voltage-dependent imaginary part, or its real part is not simply proportionnal to $`R_{diff}`$. This observation deserves more study, through measurements of the amplitude and phase of the reflection coefficient as a function of flux, voltage and frequency. However, this effect is small, and for our present study of noise, we simply use $`R_{diff}`$ to determine $`S_I`$ from $`T_N`$. This is also justified by the fact that in our short phase-coherent samples transport is elastic. Thus, the ac conductance is given by the dc $`I(V)`$ characteristics shifted by $`\pm \mathrm{}\omega /e\pm 6\mu `$. Since the characteristic scale for changes of $`dV/dI`$ is $`30\mu `$V, finite frequency corrections to $`R_{diff}`$ should be small.

In the experiment described in section 3, the noise needs to be measured over a broad frequency range. Thus, a broadband ($`120`$ GHz) cryogenic amplifier has been used, even though it has a higher noise temperature ($`T_A100`$K) than a narrow band amplifier. Also a circulator cannot be used. The noise at different frequencies is obtained by measuring the low frequency noise power after heterodyne mixing (at room temperature) the amplified signal from the sample against a variable frequency oscillator.

## 3 Measurement of the frequency dependence of the shot noise in a diffusive N wire

In this section we report measurements of the frequency dependence of the out-of-equilibrium ($`V0`$) noise in a normal metal wire between two N reservoirs (see fig. 1(a)) . In such a system the current noise at finite frequency is given by :

$$S_I(\omega ,T,V)=4k_BTG\left(\frac{\eta }{2}\left(g(v+w)+g(vw)\right)+(1\eta )g(w)\right)$$
(6)
The $`\eta =1/3`$ factor corresponds to the shot noise reduction due to disorder (Fano factor). The shot noise corresponds to the $`v`$ terms whereas equilibrium noise is given by $`v=0`$. As shown by eq. (6), the total noise is *not* given by the sum of equilibrium noise (classical Johnson or quantum) and shot noise, even at zero frequency ($`w=0`$). The unusual nature of this superposition can be emphasized by examining the fluctuations predicted by eq. (6) as a function of voltage for different frequencies (see fig. 4 left). At zero frequency (full line), there is a transition from Johnson noise to the linearly rising shot noise at $`eVk_BT2\mu `$eV. At $`20`$ GHz (dotted line), the fluctuations are dominated by quantum noise and do not increase from their value at equilibrium, until the voltage $`V_c=\mathrm{}\omega /e80\mu `$V is exceeded, even though the condition $`eV>k_BT`$ is fulfilled and the low-frequency fluctuations (solid line) are increasing rapidly. Only above $`V_c`$ does the dc voltage provide enough energy to increase the emitted photon noise.

The differential noise theoretically expected for the diffusive conductor, under the example conditions of $`T=25`$ mK, and a small ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V=30\mu `$V p.p.) square-wave voltage modulation, are shown in the bottom left of fig. 4. The square-wave modulation contributes significantly to the width of the rises. The noise measurements are reported as a variation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_N`$, of the sample’s noise temperature due to the voltage modulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$. The measured values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_N`$ for frequencies of 1.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 GHz, taken at a mixing chamber temperature of $`T=40`$ mK, are shown in fig. 4 right. While we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_N`$ for the low-frequency noise (circles) changes rapidly with voltage, approaching its linear asymptote at voltages only a few times $`k_BT/e`$, the curves become successively broader for increasing frequency. The noise for the highest frequencies has a clearly different shape, displaying the expected plateau around $`V=0`$. Also shown in fig. 4 right (full lines) are theoretical curves based on eq. (6), accounting for the finite voltage difference used, and for an electron temperature of 100 mK. The asymptotic value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_N`$ has been arbitrarily scaled (since the frequency dependent system gain is not known to better than about $`30\%`$) to be 112 mK for each frequency, corresponding to the expected reduction factor of $`\eta =1/3`$ (see eq.(6)). Note that such a reduction of the shot noise could also be attributed to the heating of the electrons (hot electron regime). See ref. for a detailed discussion of this possibility.

Though it has not been measured, in an NS geometry the same qualitative behaviour is expected, with the scale $`eV`$ replaced by $`2eV`$. For the NS system there might be corrections at a frequency of the order of the Thouless energy, in the same way there is a signature at $`4E_c`$ in the voltage dependence of the noise measured at low frequency (see section 5).

## 4 Observation of photon assited noise in an NS wire

In this section we report measurements of low frequency noise (measured in the bandwidth $`1.251.75`$GHz) emitted by an NS sample which experiences both a dc and an ac bias . The sample is a thin Au wire between N and S reservoirs, as depicted in fig. 1(b). In the presence of an ac excitation at frequency $`\omega `$, the noise emitted by a diffusive wire is:

$$S_I(V,T)=4k_BTG\left((1\eta )+2\eta \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}J_n^2(\alpha )g(v+nw)\right)$$
(7)
where $`\alpha =2eV_{ac}/(\mathrm{}\omega )`$ is a dimensionless parameter measuring the amplitude of the ac excitation voltage (note that $`\omega `$ denotes here the frequency of the ac bias; the the frequency at which the noise is measured is considered to be dc). This formula is valid at low ($`EE_c`$) and high ($`EE_c`$) energy, where $`G`$ is voltage- and frequency-independent. In between, the energy dependence of the Andreev process may give rise to corrections, as is the case for the conductance and for the effective charge (see section 6).

In the absence of ac excitation, the measured differential noise $`dT_N/dV`$ vs. bias voltage for the N-S device is, within $`5\%`$, twice as big as that measured when the device is driven normal by a magnetic field of 5 T . This is a measure of the doubling of the effective charge, which will be discussed more in section 5. We now turn to the noise measured in the presence of an ac excitation. If the transport is still elastic in the presence of ac excitation, the shot noise is expected to develop features at bias voltages such that $`qV=\pm n\mathrm{}\omega `$. The location of these features should be independent of ac power. In contrast, if the transport is inelastic, no photon-assisted features should occur. The derivative of the noise vs. bias voltage was measured with ac excitation at $`\omega /2\pi =34`$ GHz, at different levels of ac power. Figures 5(a) and (b) show the predicted and observed derivative of the noise temperature vs. dc bias voltage for several levels of ac power. To see the features more clearly, we plot in fig. 5(c) the second derivative $`d^2T_N/dV^2`$ obtained by numerical differentiation of the experimental data. With no ac excitation, $`d^2T_N/dV^2`$ has a peak at $`V=0`$. With ac excitation, the sidebands of this peak are clearly evident at $`V=\pm n\mathrm{}\omega /(2e)`$. The sideband locations are power independent, which further argues that the structure is due to a photon-assisted process. The magnitude of $`d^2T_N/dV^2`$ at $`V=0`$ displays oscillatory (roughly $`J^2(\alpha )`$) behavior vs. ac excitation amplitude (not shown), which is another hallmark of a photon-assisted process. We note that photon assisted processes are seen clearly in SIS tunnel junctions. The features there are in the quasiparticle current, so the charge involved in that case is $`1e`$. They are centered at the gap voltage $`V=2\mathrm{\Delta }/e`$, since at low temperature pair breaking must occur for a quasiparticle to tunnel.

The most convincing evidence of the photon-assisted nature of the observed effects is the dependence of the voltage location of the sideband peak on the frequency of the ac excitation. Measurements of the shot noise were made at several different frequencies of ac bias, both in zero magnetic field and at $`B=5`$ T, for which the Nb reservoir is driven normal. Figure 5(d) shows the second derivative of the shot noise power vs. bias voltage for $`\mathrm{}\omega /2\pi =10`$ and $`20`$ GHz at $`B=0`$ (solid lines) and for the same device at $`B=5`$ T (dotted lines), where the sample is driven normal. The solid and dotted straight lines are the expected peak positions for the N-S and normal cases, respectively. The peak locations clearly follow the theoretical predictions $`V=\mathrm{}\omega /q`$ with $`q=2e`$ in the case of the N-S device and $`q=e`$ in the case of the device driven normal. Figure 5(e) shows the peak locations for a number of different ac excitation frequencies at $`B=0`$ and $`B=5`$ T. The solid and dotted lines are theoretical predictions with no adjustable parameters.

## 5 Measurement of the phase dependent effective charge in an Andreev interferometer

In this section we show precise measurements of the effective charge $`q_{eff}`$, and how deviations from $`q_{eff}=2e`$ are phase sensitive. We relate these deviations to correlations of the charge transfer during Andreev reflection . After an Andreev process, the reflected hole carries information about the phase of the superconducting order parameter of the S reservoir at the N-S interface. When two S reservoirs are connected to the same phase-coherent normal region, a phase gradient develops along the normal metal, resulting in phase-dependent properties. In an Andreev interferometer - a device containing a mesoscopic multiterminal normal region with a (macroscopic) superconducting loop, all the electronic properties are periodic with the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ enclosed by the loop, with a period of the flux quantum, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/(2e)`$. The sample used for this experiment is depicted in fig. 1(c) and (d).

From the noise measurements we deduce the effective charge, $`q_{eff}=(3/2)(dS_I/dI)`$; see fig. 6(a). By considering $`dS_I/dI`$ rather than $`dS_I/dV`$ we eliminate the trivial effect of a non-linear $`I(V)`$ characteristic. At finite energy ($`E>k_BT`$) the effective charge reflects the charge transferred but also includes the effects of correlations in the transfer process. The voltage dependence of $`dS_I/dI`$ yields information on energy-dependent correlations between charge transfers. Figure 6(b) gives the theory results based on full counting statistics. The inset shows the theory for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ at $`T=0`$. The effective charge is seen in the theory to be independent of the phase difference at bias voltages larger than $`100\mu `$V, with significant phase modulation of $`q_{eff}`$ in the bias voltage range $`1080\mu `$V. The maximum magnitude of the observed dip of $`q_{eff}`$ vs. voltage is $`10`$%, and occurs for $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4`$. There is no dip for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$. For $`T=0`$, $`q_{eff}`$ returns to $`2e`$ as $`V0`$ (see inset of fig.6). At finite temperature, $`q_{eff}`$ goes to zero for $`eVk_BT`$. This is because $`S_I`$ reduces to Johnson noise at $`V=0`$. Thus, the decrease of $`q_{eff}`$ at finite temperature and at very low voltages is not related to Andreev physics. In contrast, the dip near $`4E_c30\mu `$eV (with $`E_c=\mathrm{}D/L^2`$) is due to the energy dependence of the Andreev processes.

The experimental results are in fairly good agreement with the theoretical predictions. As expected, there is no phase modulation of $`q_{eff}`$ at large energies $`eVE_c`$, and here $`q_{eff}=2e`$. At $`E4E_c`$, the effective charge is smaller for integer flux than for half-integer flux. The non-trivial energy- and flux dependence predicted (crossings of the different curves) is seen in the experiment, though the agreement is not perfect. The magnitude of the dip of $`q_{eff}`$ in the data is also close to the theoretical prediction.

To understand the origin of the dip of $`S_I`$ seen for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, we have also solved a generalized Boltzmann-Langevin (BL) equation. In such an approach correlations due to the superconductor enter only through the energy- and space-dependent conductivity, which gives $`I(V,\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Thus, the BL result is not complete, and we will compare its predictions to that of the full-counting-statistics theory, to help understand those predictions. At $`T=0`$, the BL result for all flux values is simply $`S_I^{BL}=(2/3)2eI(V,\mathrm{\Phi })`$, i.e., $`q_{eff}=2e`$ at all energies. This implies that the deviation of the effective charge from $`2e`$, measured and predicted by the full theory, must be due to fluctuation processes which are not related to single-particle scattering, on which the BL approach is based. We believe that the higher-order process which is responsible for the dip of $`S_I`$ is a two-pair correlation process. At high energies ($`EE_c`$) the electron-hole pair states have a length $`(\mathrm{}D/E)^{1/2}`$, shorter than $`L`$. This results in uncorrelated entry of pairs into the normal region. For $`EE_C`$ the pair size is larger, and the spatial overlap prevents fully random entry, suppressing $`S_I`$. Suppressed shot noise is a signature of anti-correlated charge entry . At yet lower energies (at $`T=0`$) the effective charge is predicted to return to 2e; we do not yet have a physical interpretation of this. In any case, for the case of $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$, the dip of $`q_{eff}`$ is fully suppressed, according to the theory. This means that the phase gradients destroy the pair correlation effect responsible for the dip.

## 6 Theoretical approach to the effective charge

We now turn to our theoretical approach to current noise in mesoscopic proximity effect structures. Our goal in this section is to explain the predictions and the meaning of the effective charge. We shall see that the ’dip’ in the effective charge seen for the interferometer is also seen in wires, and arises from similar pair correlation effects. A characteristic feature of the NS structures is that the phase coherent propagation of Andreev pairs in the normal metal is influenced by the proximity effect. One consequence is the so-called reentrant behaviour of the conductance of a normal diffusive wire in good contact to a superconducting terminal . The conductance is enhanced at energies of the order of $`5E_c`$. At higher and lower energies the conductance approaches its normal state value . In a fork geometry, as discussed in the previous section, the proximity effect can be tuned by a phase difference between the two superconducting terminals.

We are interested in the bias-voltage dependence of the current noise in a diffusive NS structure. There is, however, a simple energy dependence resulting from the proximity-induced energy-dependent conductivity. In contrast, the correlations of interest are not due to this energy-dependence of the conductivity. They can be distinguished in the following way. We note that for the average transport properties, i.e. the differential conductance, the kinetic equation takes the very simple form

$$\sigma (𝐱,E)f_T(𝐱,E)=0.$$
(8)
The energy- and space-dependent conductivity $`\sigma (𝐱,E)`$ includes the proximity effect, and $`f_T(𝐱,E)=1f(𝐱,E)f(𝐱,E)`$ is the symmetrized distribution function. Due to the induced superconducting correlations, $`\sigma `$ is enhanced above its normal state value $`\sigma _N`$ and its energy- and space dependence is obtained from the spectral part of the Usadel equation . For the geometry in fig. 7 the spectral conductance is $`G^1(E)=𝑑x/\sigma (x,E)`$. Note that $`G(E)0`$ even for $`E\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a consequence of the proximity effect. The current for a given bias voltage $`V`$ and temperature $`T`$ is then given by

$$I(V,T)=\frac{1}{2e}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}G(E)f_T^N(E,V,T)𝑑E$$
(9)
where $`f_T^N(E,V,T)`$ is the symmetrized distribution function in the normal metal reservoir and we have accounted for the boundary condition $`f_T^S(E\mathrm{\Delta },V,T)=0`$ at the superconducting terminal.

The form of the kinetic equation (8) suggests that electrons and holes (i.e. positive and negative energy quasiparticles) obey *independent* diffusion equations, which are only coupled through the boundary condition $`f_T^S=0`$ at the superconducting terminal. Thus, we may try to apply the semiclassical Boltzmann-Langevin (BL) approach . The only modification is that we have to account for an energy- and space-dependent conductivity. For that purpose it is convenient to introduce the characteristic potential, defined as the solution of the equation :

$$\sigma (x,E)\nu (x,E)=0$$
(10)
with the boundary condition that $`\nu =1`$ at the normal terminal and $`\nu =0`$ at the superconducting terminal. The solution for our quasi-one dimensional geometry is :

$$\nu (x,E)=G(E)_x^L\frac{dx}{\sigma (E,x)}$$
(11)
The current noise can then be expressed in the familiar form :

$$S_I^{BL}(V)=4𝑑E𝑑x\sigma (x,E)\left(\nu (x,E)\right)^2f(x,E)(1f(x,E))$$
(12)
where the distribution function is given by $`f(x,E)=\nu (x,E)f^N(E,V,T)`$. As a result we find for the noise at zero temperature (i.e., $`f_T^N(E,V,T=0)=`$ -sign$`(eV)`$ for $`|E|<|eV|`$ and zero otherwise) :

$$S_I^{BL}(V)=\frac{4e}{3}I(V)$$
(13)
where the current is given by $`I(V)=(1/2e)_{eV}^{eV}𝑑EG(E)`$. Thus, we find that the current noise depends in a non linear fashion on the voltage. The nonlinearity is given by the $`I(V)`$ characteristic. However, this dependence is in some sense trivial, since the only way the electron-hole coherence enters is through the energy dependent conductivity.

We note that the doubling of the shot noise in comparison to the normal case results from the *energy integration* from $`eV`$ to $`+eV`$, instead of the interval between $`0`$ (i.e., the Fermi energy) and $`eV`$, as it would be in the normal case. On the other hand, the average ’noisiness’ (coming from the spatial integral in eq. (12) alone) is the *same* in the normal and the superconducting cases . Thus, the doubling of the noise needs not be interpreted as a direct consequence of the doubled charge transfer involved in an Andreev reflection process. It reflects the particle-hole symmetry in the superconducting terminal. Nevertheless we adopt below the notion of an effective charge, since it is a convenient measure of the deviation from the independent electron fluctuations.

These arguments can also be used to explain the experiments on photon-assisted noise described previously. In the presence of an ac voltage of frequency $`\omega `$ the electron distribution in the normal terminal acquires side-bands, i.e., additional steps at energies $`\pm n\mathrm{}\omega `$. The noise of the diffusive wire depends essentially on a superposition of left and right distribution functions differing by the voltage $`eV`$ in the normal state and by $`2eV`$ in the NS case. It is clear that the noise properties change as a function of voltage, when sideband features match the other steps in the distribution function. As a consequence, photon-assisted steps occur when the voltage matches $`n\mathrm{}\omega /e`$ in the normal case and $`n\mathrm{}\omega /2e`$ in the superconducting case. This is what is observed in the experiments (see section 4).

A correct calculation of the noise requires that we go beyond the independent electron- and hole-fluctuations in the Boltzmann-Langevin approach. This can be accessed by the extended Green’s function approach . To describe the fluctuations, we utilize the results of the full counting statistics and define an effective charge

$$q_{eff}(V,T)=\frac{3}{2}\frac{S_I(V,T)}{I(V,T)},$$
(14)
which takes the value $`2e`$ for the Boltzmann-Langevin result (see eq. (13)). It follows that the energy dependence of the effective charge gives information about the correlated electron-hole fluctuation processes.

In order to illustrate these considerations, we show in fig. 7 results for the conductance $`dI/dV`$, the differential noise $`dS_I(V)/dV`$, and the effective charge at zero temperature for a one-dimensional diffusive wire between a normal and a superconducting reservoir. Note: $`q_{eff}`$ is proportionnal to $`dS_I/dI=(dS_I/dV)(dI/dV)^1`$. These results were obtained by a numerical solution of the quantum-kinetic equation. The differential conductance shows the well-known reentrance (peak) behaviour . At low and high energy the conductance approaches the normal state value $`G_N`$. At intermediate energies of the order of the Thouless energy the conductance is enhanced by $`15\%`$ above $`G_N`$. A similar result is found for the interferometer when $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ . We observe that the differential noise $`dS/dV`$ has a roughly similar energy dependence, although it is quantitatively different. The deviation of the voltage-dependent effective charge from $`2e`$ demonstrates the energy dependence of the higher order correlations, which are not contained in the independent electron-hole picture, the BL approach. Around $`E4E_c`$ the effective charge is suppressed below $`2e`$, showing that the higher order correlations result in a reduced noise in comparison to the BL case of uncorrelated electron and hole fluctuations, for which $`q_{eff}=2e`$. As $`V0`$, $`q_{eff}`$ approaches $`2e`$ again.

The physics of this effective charge is clarified if we consider the full counting statistics , instead of the current noise only. In full counting statistics, we obtains the *distribution of tranfered charges*, which clearly contains direct information on both the statistics and the nature of the charge carriers. There it follows that *all* charge transfers at subgap-energies occur in units of $`2e`$ . However, this does not necessarily result in a doubled effective charge using our definition of $`q_{eff}`$. The effective charge also includes the effect of correlations between the different charge transfers. Our work in section 5 shows that these correlations are phase-dependent.Nevertheless, in the limit of *uncorrelated* transfer of Andreev pairs, the effective charge at $`Ek_BT`$ is simply $`2e`$.

## 7 Conclusion

In this paper we have discussed how Andreev Reflection affects shot noise of mesoscopic NS structures. High frequency measurements provide a very powerfull tool since they are very sensitive, as is essential to the measurement of the small voltage- and flux dependence of the effective charge, and these measurements access an energy domain in which interesting phenomena occur, when $`\mathrm{}\omega >eV,k_BT`$. These techniques are very promising for investigation of even more subtle quantities like cross-correlations in the noise or higher moments of the current fluctuations . The measurements have revealed the existence of correlations in pair charge transfers which are not accessible through conductance measurements. The full counting statistics method gives access to the full distribution of the charge transfers, and is essential for understanding the physics of such NS structures. This method sheds light on the correlations revealed by the shot noise, and allows as well the investigation of cross-correlations and higher moments.

## Acknowledgements

The authors thank R.J. Schoelkopf, A.A. Kozhevnikov, P.J. Burke and M.J. Rooks for collaboration on some of the experiments reported, and also M. Devoret and I. Siddiqi and Yu V. Nazarov for useful discussions. This work was supported by NSF DMR grant 0072022. The work of W.B. was supported by the Swiss NSF and the NCCR Nanoscience.


text:
# Bose-Einstein condensates with attractive interactions on a ring

\[

## Abstract

Considering an effectively attractive quasi-one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate of atoms confined in a toroidal trap, we find that the system undergoes a phase transition from a uniform to a localized state, as the magnitude of the coupling constant increases. Both the mean-field approximation, as well as a diagonalization scheme are used to attack the problem.

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 67.40.Db, 05.30.Jp, 05.45.Yv

\]

Effectively attractive Bose-Einstein condensates have concentrated a lot of attention recently, in connection with the experimental formation of bright solitons in them . More specifically, in the experiments of Refs. , 7Li atoms were confined in quasi-one-dimensional traps. With use of the Feschbach resonances  the effective coupling constant that describes the atom interactions was then tuned and as it became negative – corresponding to an effective attraction between the atoms – localized states, “bright soliton trains” were observed to form in Ref. , while a single bright soliton was observed in Ref. . References  have examined theoretically these systems. In the limit where transversely to the long axis of the trap the gas is in the lowest harmonic-oscillator level, the transverse degrees of freedom are frozen out and the system is essentially one-dimensional .

Motivated by these developments, we study here an effectively attractive one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate of atoms confined in a toroidal trap. In a recent theoretical paper Kanamoto, Saito, and Ueda have investigated the ground state and the low-lying excited states of such a system  (see also Ref.  for a detailed discussion of this problem). As shown, the Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field theory predicts a quantum phase transition between a uniform state and a localized state as the absolute value of the strength of the interaction inreases. Furthermore, numerical diagonalization of the Hamiltonian for a finite number of bosons shows that the transition in this case is smeared out, as expected in finite systems.

In our study we examine the same problem using different techniques. Initially we use the mean-field approximation with a properly chosen variational wavefunction to study the phase transition and the order parameter in the two phases. Then, working in the same truncated space we use a Bogoliubov transformation to diagonalize the Hamiltonian. Having diagonalized the problem, we examine the lowest state of the system, the low-lying excited states, as well as the depletion of the condensate at the region of the transition. Our results are consistent with those of Ref. .

Let us therefore consider a Bose-Einstein condensate in a toroidal trap. Following Ref. , we assume that the system contains $`N`$ bosons, that the radius of the torus is $`R`$ and its cross section is $`S=\pi r^2`$, with $`rR`$. If $`\widehat{\psi }(\theta )`$ is the field operator, the Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H}=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \left[\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta )\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\widehat{\psi }(\theta )+\frac{U_0}{2}\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta )\widehat{\psi }^{}(\theta )\widehat{\psi }(\theta )\widehat{\psi }(\theta )\right],$$
(1)
where $`U_0=8\pi aR/S`$, with $`a`$ being the scattering length for elastic atom-atom collisions, and $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle. Here the length is measured in units of $`R`$ and the energy in units of $`\mathrm{}^2/2mR^2`$, with $`m`$ being the atom mass.

Let us start with the mean-field approach. Within this approximation the system is described by a single wavefunction, the order parameter $`\psi (𝐫)`$, and the many-body state is the product $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i\psi (𝐫_i)`$, with $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of atoms. Therefore this approximation ignores correlations between the atoms and in general it has a higher energy than the exact solution that one can get by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian.

In this problem it is natural to work in the basis of plane-wave states $`\varphi _l(\theta )=e^{il\theta }/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ and according to the analysis of Ref. , the order parameter close to the transition consists of the state $`\varphi _0`$ (the dominant component), and the states $`\varphi _{\pm 1}`$. To get a simple physical picture, we thus develop a variational approach, expanding $`\psi (\theta )`$ in the basis of the $`\varphi _l`$ states and keeping only these three components. This is a reasonable assumption, since states with higher values of $`l`$ have higher kinetic energy, and indeed as shown in Ref.  this approximation gives qualitatively (but not quantitatively) good results. We thus write

$`\psi (\theta )=c_1\varphi _1+c_0\varphi _0+c_1\varphi _1.`$ (2)
Since the dominant component of $`\psi `$ is $`\varphi _0`$, therefore $`|c_0||c_1|`$, and $`|c_0||c_1|`$. Because of the symmetry of the problem, $`|c_1|=|c_1|`$, which also guarantees that the total angular momentum of $`\psi `$ is zero, as it should. The normalization condition imposes the further constraint $`|c_1|^2+|c_0|^2+|c_1|^2=1`$.

To proceed, we express the energy per particle $`ϵ_0`$ in terms of the coefficients $`c_i`$, which are then determined by minimizing $`ϵ_0`$ with respect to them ,

$`ϵ_0=2|c_1|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}[|c_0|^4+|c_1|^4+|c_1^4|+4|c_0|^2|c_1|^2`$ (3)
$`+4|c_0|^2|c_1|^2+4|c_1|^2|c_1|^2+2c_0^2c_1^{}c_1^{}+2(c_0^2)^{}c_1c_1],`$ (4)
where $`\gamma =NU_0/(2\pi )=4NaR/S`$ is essentially the ratio between the interaction energy and the kinetic energy. If $`c_j=|c_j|e^{i\theta _j}`$, then the last two terms in Eq. (4) are equal to $`4|c_0|^2|c_1|^2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1+\theta _12\theta _0)`$. To minimize $`ϵ_0`$ one has to choose $`\theta _1+\theta _12\theta _0=0`$. Since $`|c_0|^2=12|c_1|^2`$,

$`ϵ_0{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}=2|c_1|^2(1+2\gamma )7\gamma |c_1|^4.`$ (5)
Here $`\gamma /2`$ is the interaction energy per particle of the uniform state. The above equation implies that for $`\gamma >\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}=1/2`$, the minimum of the energy occurs for $`c_0=1`$, and $`c_1=c_1=0`$. In this regime the density of the system is uniform and the energy per particle is $`\gamma /2`$. On the other hand, if $`\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, $`ϵ_0(|c_1|^2)`$ is like a mexican hat, and its minimum occurs for all three $`c_i0`$, the energy per particle is lower than $`\gamma /2`$ and the cloud develops a non-uniform density. Our approach implies that the transition takes place for the same critical value of $`\gamma `$ as in the exact solution of the mean-field approach . It is interesting that within our scheme including more basis states in the order parameter does not affect $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$. More precisely, including the states with $`|l|m`$, the quadratic terms in the energy have the form

$`ϵ_0{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}=2|c_1|^2(1+2\gamma )+2|c_2|^2(4`$ $`+`$ $`2\gamma )`$ (6)
$`+\mathrm{}+2|c_m|^2(m^2`$ $`+`$ $`2\gamma ).`$ (7)
From the above expression it is obvious that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is always $`1/2`$, essentially because of the high kinetic energy of atoms in states with high values of $`l`$, that scales as $`l^2`$.

Let us now examine the non-uniform state when $`\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$. Demanding that $`ϵ_0/|c_1|^2=0`$, we get

$`|c_{\pm 1}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{7\gamma }}(\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{cr}});|c_0|^2=1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7\gamma }}(\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}).`$ (8)
Figure 1 shows the corresponding order parameter. In addition

$`ϵ_0{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{7\gamma }}(\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{cr}})^2.`$ (9)
If $`\gamma =1/2\delta `$, where $`\delta 0`$ and $`\delta >0`$, the above equation implies that $`ϵ_0=1/4\delta /28\delta ^2/7`$, which should be compared with the exact mean-field solution , $`ϵ_0^{\mathrm{ex}}1/4\delta /22\delta ^2`$. Therefore our trial wavefunction reproduces the linear correction, but it fails in the quadratic term and it has higher energy. This is not a surprise, however, since our approach is variational and it does not necessarily capture all these features. Including more basis states, one can improve the wavefunction and the energy to the desired order in $`\delta `$.

Turning to our alternative approach of the problem, where we will go beyond the mean-field approximation

and we will calculate terms in the energy of order $`1/N`$, let us expand the field operator $`\widehat{\psi }`$,

$`\widehat{\psi }(\theta )=\varphi _1\widehat{c}_1+\varphi _0\widehat{c}_0+\varphi _1\widehat{c}_1,`$ (10)
where $`\widehat{c}_l`$ is now the annihilation operator of an atom with angular momentum $`l`$. Again we have restricted ourselves to the states with $`l=0,\pm 1`$. In this basis the Hamiltonian (1) can be written as

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}l^2\widehat{c}_l^{}\widehat{c}_l+{\displaystyle \frac{U_0}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{klmn}{}}\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_l^{}\widehat{c}_m\widehat{c}_n\delta _{m+nkl}.`$ (11)
A similar Hamiltonian has been studied in Ref.  in the context of weakly-interacting Bose-Einstein condensates under rotation. Denoting the basis vectors as

$`|m=|N_1,N_0,N_1|(1)^m,0^{N2m},(+1)^m,`$ (12)
where $`N_l`$ is the occupancy of the state $`\varphi _l`$, with $`_lN_l=N`$, and $`_llN_l=0`$, it is straightforward to calculate the diagonal matrix elements,

$`m|\widehat{H}|m=2m+{\displaystyle \frac{U_0}{4\pi }}[(N2m)(N2m1)`$ (13)
$`+2m(m1)+8m(N2m)+4m^2].`$ (14)
Assuming that the system is close to the transition point, but on the side of the “uniform state” (in the infinite-$`N`$ limit of the mean-field approximation), then $`m`$ is of order unity and thus $`mN`$. In this limit,

$`m|\widehat{H}|m{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(N1)+2m(1+\gamma ),`$ (15)
where $`\gamma (N1)/2`$ is the total energy of a condensate with uniform density. In Eq. (15) terms of order $`m^2`$ have been neglected, and therefore this approach is not valid for $`\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (since $`m`$ becomes of order $`N`$ there).

Turning to the off-diagonal matrix elements,

$$m|\widehat{H}|m+1=\frac{U_0}{4\pi }2\sqrt{(N2m)(N2m1)(m+1)^2},$$
(16)
and in the limit $`mN`$,

$`m|\widehat{H}|m+1=\gamma (m+1).`$ (17)
From Eqs. (15) and (17) $`\widehat{H}`$ can be written as

$`\widehat{H}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(N1)=`$ (18)
$`(1+\gamma )(\widehat{c}_1^{}\widehat{c}_1+\widehat{c}_1^{}\widehat{c}_1)+\gamma (\widehat{c}_1^{}\widehat{c}_1^{}+\widehat{c}_1\widehat{c}_1).`$ (19)
The above Hamiltonian can be diagonalized with use of a Bogoliubov transformation ,

$`\widehat{b}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1\widehat{c}_1^{}+\lambda _2\widehat{c}_1`$ (20)
$`\widehat{d}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _2\widehat{c}_1+\lambda _1\widehat{c}_1^{}.`$ (21)
For $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{d}`$ to satisfy bosonic commutation relations, $`\lambda _2^2\lambda _1^2=1`$. Following the usual tricks, $`\widehat{H}`$ can be written in the diagonal form

$`\widehat{H}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(N1)=E_0+E(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d}),`$ (22)
where

$`E_0(\gamma )=2[(1+\gamma )\lambda _1^2\gamma \lambda _1\lambda _2],`$ (23)
and

$`E(\gamma )=(1+\gamma )(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2)2\gamma \lambda _1\lambda _2.`$ (24)
In addition, to eliminate the off-diagonal terms one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda _1\lambda _2}{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}}.`$ (25)
Parametrizing, i.e, writing $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{sinh}(\theta )`$ and $`\lambda _2=\mathrm{cosh}(\theta )`$, Eq. (25) can be written as

$`\mathrm{tanh}(2\theta )=\gamma /(\gamma +1),`$ (26)
and in order for a solution to exist, $`\gamma >1/2`$. Equation (26) implies that $`\theta =\mathrm{ln}(2\gamma +1)`$, which can be used to express all the quantities in terms of $`\gamma `$. Thus we get for the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{H}`$,

$$_{n_b,n_d}\frac{\gamma }{2}(N1)=(\gamma +1)+\sqrt{1+2\gamma }(1+n_b+n_d),$$
(27)
where $`n_b,n_d=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ are the eigenvalues of the number operators $`\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d}`$ respectively. For $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`_{0,0}=\gamma /2=ϵ_0`$, in agreement with mean field.

Having diagonalized $`\widehat{H}`$, we can easily get the occupancy of the $`\varphi _{l=\pm 1}`$ states, which is

$`\widehat{c}_{\pm 1}^{}\widehat{c}_{\pm 1}/N=\lambda _1^2/N.`$ (28)
Expanding we get that close to the transition,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{c}_{\pm 1}^{}\widehat{c}_{\pm 1}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma +1/2)^{1/2}}{N}}.`$ (29)
Since the occupancy of the $`\varphi _{\pm 1}`$ states is a smooth and continuous function for any value of $`\gamma `$ when $`N`$ is finite, and since in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`\widehat{c}_{\pm 1}^{}\widehat{c}_{\pm 1}/N`$ has to equal $`|c_{\pm 1}|^2`$ , a simple geometric construction shows that the value of the function in Eq. (29) at $`\gamma _+=1/2+\delta `$, minus the value of $`|c_{\pm 1}|^2`$ at $`\gamma _{}=1/2\delta `$ has to be proportional to $`\delta `$, and thus

$`\delta =\eta N^{2/3},`$ (30)
in agreement with Ref. , where it was found numerically that $`\eta 1.077`$. Therefore to leading order

$`|c_{\pm 1}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}(\gamma +1/2+\eta N^{2/3}),`$ (31)
and

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{cr}}=1/2\eta N^{2/3}.`$ (32)
Turning to the energy spectrum, in the lowest state $`n_b=n_d=0`$, and thus the ground state energy is

$`E_0(\gamma )=(\gamma +1)+(2\gamma +1)^{1/2}`$ (33)
measured from the energy of the state with uniform density, $`\gamma (N1)/2`$. Making use of Eq. (32) we plot the function $`E_0(\gamma +\eta N^{2/3})`$ in Fig. 2 for $`N=100`$ (top curve), 500 (middle curve), and $`N\mathrm{}`$ (bottom curve), with $`\eta =1.077`$. From Eq. (32) we get that to leading order $`E_0(\gamma =1/2)=1/2+(2\eta )^{1/2}N^{1/3}`$.

The low-lying excited states of $`\widehat{H}`$ lie above the lowest state by $`E(\gamma )(n_b+n_d)`$, where

$`E(\gamma )=(2\gamma +1)^{1/2}.`$ (34)
The energy of the lowest excited state is thus $`E(\gamma )`$, in agreement with Ref. . Figure 3 shows $`E(\gamma +\eta N^{2/3})`$ for $`N=100`$ (top curve), 500 (middle curve), and $`N\mathrm{}`$ (bottom curve). From Eq. (32), $`E(\gamma =1/2)=(2\eta )^{1/2}N^{1/3}`$.

Finally the depletion of the condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ is,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }N=\widehat{c}_1^{}\widehat{c}_1+\widehat{c}_1^{}\widehat{c}_1=2\lambda _1^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma +1}{\sqrt{2\gamma +1}}}1\right).`$ (35)
Figure 4 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(\gamma +\eta N^{2/3})`$ for $`N=100`$ (bottom curve), 500 (middle curve), and $`N\mathrm{}`$ (top curve). According to Eq. (32), to leading order $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(\gamma =1/2)=(\sqrt{2}/4)\eta ^{1/2}N^{1/3}`$.

To summarize, we examined a Bose-Einstein condensate in a toroidal trap, with an effective attractive interaction between the atoms. Using a variational approach and working within an appropriately chosen set of basis states, we demonstrated that within the mean-field approximation for a strong enough coupling constant a condensate of uniform density becomes unstable against the formation of a localized state. Going beyond the mean-field approximation, we diagonalized the Hamiltonian in the same truncated space just above the transition and we calculated the energy of the low-lying states, as well as the depletion of the condensate. While the energy in this case is lower than that of the mean-field, the two methods give the same results in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, assumed implicitly in mean-field.

The author is grateful to A. D. Jackson, B. Mottelson, N. Papanicolaou, C. J. Pethick, and in particular to H. Smith for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR), and by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF).