text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The CBI is an array of 13 0.9-meter diameter Cassegrain antennas mounted on a 6-meter diameter tracking platform. The results presented here are based on an analysis of data obtained from January through to December 2000 . Previous experiments such as BOOMERANG, DASI and MAXIMA have measured precisely the shape of a first peak at $`\mathrm{}220`$, consistent with an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe with adiabatic, inflationary seeded perturbations. A significant detection of a second peak has also been established  with evidence for a third. The CBI observations have now extended the multipole range observed by multiple band experiments by a factor of $`3`$. The results have confirmed another important element of the adiabatic, inflationary paradigm, the damping at high multipoles due to the viscous drag over the finite width of the last scattering surface . Mason et al.(2002)  give a description of the CBI instrumental setup and observing strategy. Here we review the main results and cosmological parameter fits obtained from the observations and discuss the nature of the possible excess observed on the smallest angular scales at $`2000<\mathrm{}<4000`$.

## 2 Results

The instrument observes in 10 frequency channels spanning the band $`2636`$GHz and measures 78 baselines simultaneously. Our power spectrum estimation pipeline is described in  and involves an optimal compression of the $`𝒪(10^5)`$ visibility measurements of each field into a coarse grained lattice of visibility estimators. Known point sources are projected out of the data sets when estimating the primary anisotropy spectrum by using a number of constraint matrices. The positions are obtained from the (1.4GHz) NVSS catalog . When projecting out the sources we use large amplitudes which effectively marginalize over all affected modes. This insures robustness with respect to errors in the assumed fluxes of the sources. The residual contribution of sources below our $`S_{1.4}=3.4`$ mJy cutoff is treated as a white noise background with an estimated amplitude of $`0.08\pm 0.04`$ Jy/sr$`{}_{}{}^{}1`$ .

The power spectra for both the mosaic and deep observations are shown in Figure 1. Both show a clear detection of the expected damping of the power at $`\mathrm{}>1000`$.

We fit a minimal set of inflationary parameters to the data; $`\omega _b=\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, $`\omega _{\mathrm{cdm}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}h^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$, $`n_s`$, $`\tau _c`$. We also include calibration errors and beam errors where applicable. Our parameter fitting pipeline is described in detail in Sievers et al. (2002) . The results for the combination of CBI and DMR data are shown in Table 1 for various combinations of priors. Our parameter fits and best fit models are consistent with previous results from fits to data at lower multipoles. We have also carried out a combined analysis of the CBI data with the BOOMERANG, MAXIMA and DASI data and with a compilation of data predating April 2001 .

The deep field measurements reveal an apparent excess in the power at multipoles $`\mathrm{}>2000`$ over standard adiabatic, inflationary models with a significance of $`3.1\sigma `$. The excess is a factor of $`4.5`$ greater than the estimated contribution from a background of residual sources and the confidence limit includes a $`50\%`$ error in the value for the background flux density.

We have considered whether secondary anisotropies from the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect may explain the observed excess . We used four hydrodynamical simulations employing both Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) and Moving Mesh Hydrodynamics (MMH) algorithms with rms amplitudes $`\sigma _8=1.0`$ and $`0.9`$ to calculate the expected contribution to the angular power spectrum from the SZE. We find that both algorithms produce power consistent with the observed excess for $`\sigma _8=1`$.

The CBI power spectrum estimation pipeline has been tested extensively using accurate simulations of the observations with the exact $`uv`$-coverage and noise characteristics of the observed fields . We used the SZ maps from the hydrodynamical codes as foregrounds in our simulations to test the Gaussian assumption implicit in the bandpower estimation algorithm in the presence of extended non-Gaussian foregrounds such as the SZE. We find that, for the amplitudes considered, the pipeline recovers the total power accurately or the 30 maps considered  including at scales $`\mathrm{}>2000`$ where the signal is dominated by the SZ foregrounds.

## 3 Conclusions

Our analysis of the CBI observations has yielded parameters consistent with the standard $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. These results, based on measurements extending to much higher $`\mathrm{}`$ than previous experiments, provide a unique confirmation of the model. The dominant feature in the data is the decline in the power with increasing $`\mathrm{}`$, a necessary consequence of the paradigm which has now been checked. In summary under weak prior assumptions the combination of CBI and DMR data gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1.01_{0.06}^{+0.09}`$, and $`n_s=1.02_{0.07}^{+0.11}`$, consistent with inflationary models; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}h^2=0.12\pm 0.03`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.64_{0.14}^{+0.11}`$. With more restrictive priors, flat+weak-$`h`$+LSS, are used, we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}h^2=0.13_{0.01}^{+0.02}`$, consistent with large scale structure studies; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.025_{0.008}^{+0.010}`$, consistent with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.37\pm 0.11`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.060\pm 0.020`$, indicating a low matter density universe; $`h=0.65_{0.12}^{+0.12}`$, consistent with the recent determinations of the Hubble Constant based on the recently revised Cepheid period-luminosity law; and $`t_0=14.0_{1.2}^{+1.2}`$ Gyr, consistent with cosmological age estimates based on the oldest stars in globular clusters. The combination of CMB measurements and LSS priors also enables us to constrain the normalization $`\sigma _8`$. We find that for flat+weak-$`h`$+LSS priors we obtain $`\sigma _8=0.89_{0.10}^{+0.14}`$. Thus it appears that the normalization required to explain the excess with the SZE is in the upper range of the independent result based on the primary CMB signal and LSS data.

The 2001 observing season data is now being analyzed. Although the data will double the overall integration time and area it is not expected to increase the confidence of the high-$`\mathrm{}`$ measurements. Follow-up surveys of the deep fields in the optical range and correlation with existing X-ray catalogs may establish whether the measurement is indeed a serendipitous detection of the SZE and will be part of future work. However, the observations have highlighted the potential for SZE measurements to constrain $`\sigma _8`$ via the highly sensitive dependence of the angular power spectrum to the amplitude of the fluctuations $`𝒞^{SZ}\sigma _8^7`$, although precise calibration of the theories from either numerical or analytical methods are required to make such conclusions feasible. The CBI is currently being upgraded with polarization sensitive antennas for the 2002/2003 observing season.

Acknowledgements.  This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants AST 94-13935, AST 98-02989, and AST 00-98734. Research in Canada is supported by NSERC and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The computational facilities at Toronto are funded by the Canadian Fund for Innovation. We are grateful to CONICYT for granting permission to operate the CBI at the Chajnantor Scientific Preserve in Chile.


format: text

text:
# Classical information capacities of some single qubit quantum noisy channels

## Introduction

Calculating the information capacities of quantum noisy channels is an important task for studying quantum communication Holevo/9809023 . It has attracted much interest and many methods and results are proposed and obtained NandCbook . This interest was mainly stimulated by interplay between quantum communication theory and quantum information ideas related to more recent development in quantum computing and quantum communication. Unlike classical channels, which are adequately characterized by a single capacity, a quantum channel has several distinct capacities. They include (1) *classical capacity* $`C_{pp}`$, for transmitting classical information by encoding it with quantum product states and decoding it with individual measurement Kholevo73  Fuchs96 ; (2) *classical capacity* $`C_{pe}`$, for transmitting classical information by encoding it with quantum product states and decoding it with collective measurement Holevo98  Hausladen96  Schumacher97 . Similarly, there are another two capacities denoted by $`C_{ep}`$ and $`C_{ee}`$; (3) *entanglement-assisted classical capacity* Holevo0106075  $`C_{ea}`$ which describes the capacity of transmitting intact quantum states by the help of prior entanglement between the sender and the receiver; (4) *quantum capacity* $`Q,`$ a supremum of *coherent information* which is the correspondence of mutual information in classical information theory Baruum9702049  Schumacher96 ; and (5) *classical assisted quantum capacity* $`Q_c`$ Bennett99 . In general, it is difficult to calculate these capacities by their definitions. Scientists discovered some clear expressions which may simplify the calculation but there are still involving some technical problems. So for calculating the capacities distinctly some special methods are developed in last years. By using some special methods we have investigated the entanglement-assisted classical information capacities of some single qubit quantum noisy channels LF02 . In this paper our investigation focus on classical information capacities $`C_{pe}`$ for some well-known quantum noisy channels. In subsection 2.1 we will investigate the capacities of depolarizing and erasure quantum noisy channels. The capacities of these two kinds of channels can be calculated by solving eigenvalues of output states directly. In subsection 2.2 we will calculate the capacities of serval well-known quantum noisy channels with the help of Bloch sphere representation of qubit quantum state. In subsection 2.3 we use the Stokes parametrization representation of qubit quantum state to investigate the capacities of amplitude damping channel and splaying channel. A brief conclusion will close this paper in the last section.

## I Calculating the capacities of quantum noisy channels

Interactions with the environment are the fundamental source of noise in both classical and quantum systems. It is often not easy to find exact models for the environment or the system-environment interaction. However, some quantum noisy models, for example, depolarizing channel, phase damping channel, two-Pauli channel, amplitude damping channel etc. Uhlmann01  can attain a high degree of accuracy in modeling of noise in circuits of quantum computation and quantum communication Liang02 . So calculating the capacities of quantum noisy channels is a significative work. We start our research with reviewing some concepts as follows.

$``$ Operator sum representation: Every completely positive trace-preserving map $`\epsilon `$ can be regarded as a channel which can be represented (non-uniquely) in the Kraus form

$$\rho ^{}=\epsilon \left(\rho \right)=E_k^{}\rho E_k$$
(1)
which is also called operator sum representation. Here, $`E_k`$ is the Kraus operators and $`\rho `$ is the density matrix of input state and $`\rho ^{}`$ is the density matrix of output state.

$``$ Unital map: King01  If $`\epsilon `$ map the identity operator to itself i.e.

$$\epsilon \left(I\right)=I,$$
(2)
this map is a unital map.

$``$ Bloch sphere representation: A density matrix of a qubit quantum pure state can be expressed as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sin}\theta & 1\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(3)
This expression is called Bloch sphere representation of qubit quantum state.

$``$ Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland (HSW) theorem: Holevo98 , Hausladen96 , Schumacher97  The classical information capacity (encoding with pure product states and decoding with collective measurement) of quantum channel is given by

$$C_{pe}=\underset{\{p_j,\rho _j\}}{sup}\left(S(_jp_j\epsilon \left(\rho _j\right))_jp_jS\left(\epsilon \left(\rho _j\right)\right)\right).$$
(4)
Here, $`S(\tau )=\tau \mathrm{log}\left(\tau \right)`$ ( where and throughout this paper the logarithms are taken to base two) denotes the von Neumann entropy, $`p_j`$ is the probability of state $`\rho _j`$ in ensemble $`\{p_j,\rho _j\}`$.

$``$ If a map is unital, then the classical information capacity $`C_{pe}`$ can be obtained with orthogonal input King01 .

By using above definitions, theorem and proposition we now investigate the capacities $`C_{pe}`$ for some well-known quantum noisy channels.

### I.1 By solving the eigenvalues of output states directly

In this subsection we will investigate the classical information capacities $`C_{pe}`$ of depolarizing channel and the erasure channel through solving eigenvalues of output states directly.

$``$ Depolarizing channel: At first, we investigate the memoryless depolarizing channel (memoryless is assumed throughout this paper for all channels). Depolarizing channel is a important type of quantum noisy channels. It models a decohering qubit that has particularly nice symmetry properties. There are many practical quantum processes corresponding to this model NandCbook . Its Kraus operators are

$`E_0^d`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\eta }I,E_1^d=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{3}}}\sigma _1,E_2^d=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{3}}}\sigma _2,E_3^d=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{3}}}\sigma _3.`$
$`\sigma _i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ denote the Pauli matrices; $`I`$ is the identity matrix in the Hilbert space of $`C^{2\times 2}`$; $`\eta `$ is the error occurring probability of quantum state passing through a depolarizing channel. So when a quantum state $`\rho `$ is transmitted through this channel the state becomes

$`\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^d\left(\rho \right)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\left(1\eta \right)\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{3}}\left(\sigma _1\rho \sigma _1+\sigma _2\rho \sigma _2+\sigma _3\rho \sigma _3\right),`$
where $`\epsilon ^d`$ denotes a map of depolarizing channel (we use the first or the first two or three letters of the names of the channels as the superscripts to differentiate the map $`\epsilon ,`$ Kraus operators $`E_i`$ and so on of different channels); we set $`\rho `$ is the input pure state and $`\rho ^{}`$ is the output state (in general, it is mixed state) of input state $`\rho `$; This map $`\epsilon ^d`$ is a unital map. From the following relationship

$$2I=\rho +\sigma _1\rho \sigma _1+\sigma _2\rho \sigma _2+\sigma _3\rho \sigma _3$$
(7)
we can obtain the two output states $`\rho _1^{}`$ and $`\rho _2^{}`$ of a pair of input encoding states $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ as

$$\rho _{1,2}^{}=\left(1\frac{4\eta }{3}\right)\rho _{1,2}+\frac{2\eta }{3}I.$$
(8)
$`\rho _1^{}`$ has the eigenvalues $`\alpha _1^d=12\eta /3,`$ $`\alpha _2^d=2\eta /3,`$ similarly $`\rho _2^{}`$ has the eigenvalues $`\beta _1^d=12\eta /3,`$ $`\beta _2^d=2\eta /3`$ (in the following we always denote the eigenvalues of states $`\rho _1^{}`$ with $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\rho _2^{}`$ with $`\beta _i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$). So $`S\left(\epsilon ^d\left(\rho _j\right)\right)=H\left(2\eta /3\right)`$ which does not depend on $`\rho _j`$ at all. Here, $`H\left(\tau \right)`$ denotes the binary entropy i.e. $`H(\tau )=\tau \mathrm{log}\tau (1\tau )\mathrm{log}(1\tau )`$. Thus, $`C_{pe}`$ can be achieved by maximizing the entropy of mixed state $`\varrho ^d=_jp_j\epsilon ^d\left(\rho _j\right)`$ which may be done through a pair orthogonal input states (we denote the mixed density matrix $`_jp_j\epsilon \left(\rho _j\right)`$ always by $`\varrho `$ in this paper). For example, we calculate it by simply choosing the $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ of single qubit, so we immediately obtain a eigenvalues of mixed state $`\varrho ^d`$ as $`\gamma _1^d=\gamma _2^d=1/2`$ (we always denote the eigenvalues of mixed state $`\varrho =_jp_j\epsilon \left(\rho _j\right)`$ by $`\gamma _i`$ ). Thus, we can obtain its capacity as

$$C_{pe}^d=1H\left(\frac{2\eta }{3}\right).$$
(9)
$``$ Erasure channel: The capacity of another quantum noisy channel, erasure channel can also be investigated as same as depolarizing channel GBP97 . When a quantum state is transmitted through this channel the undisturbed probability is $`1\eta `$. In case of an error, the quantum state is replaced by $`|\xi `$ that is orthogonal to all quantum states of the system. In another words, the error make the state out of its original Hilbert space i.e. the information is erased with probability $`\eta .`$ So when a quantum state $`\rho =C^{2\times 2}`$ pass through this channel the state becomes

$`\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^e\left(\rho \right)=\left(1\eta \right)\rho +\eta |\xi \xi |,|\xi `$
The capacity can be easily calculated. It is $`1\eta `$ BDS97 ,Keyl0202112 .

### I.2 By help with Bloch sphere representation

The classical information capacities of some other quantum noisy channels may not be calculated as easier as above two channels. For example, the capacities of phase damping channel, two Pauli channel, bit flip channel etc. can not be calculated by solving the eigenvalues of the output states directly. In this case, we find that it may be convenient by using Bloch sphere representation of qubit quantum state. Analytically investigating the classical information capacities by using the Bloch sphere representations of qubit states is also restricted in some quantum noisy channels which are expressed by unital maps, but by using this method and with the help of numerical work we can widely investigate the classical information capacities $`C_{pe}`$ almost for all of the quantum noisy channels. So this method is very powerful.

Now let us calculate the classical information capacity $`C_{pe}`$ of phase damping channel by use of Bloch sphere representation.

$``$ Phase damping channel: It has the Kraus operators as Preskill

$`E_0^p`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\eta }I,E_1^p=\sqrt{\eta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right],E_2^p=\sqrt{\eta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (15)
By using Eqs.(1) and (LABEL:eq11) we can obtain the density matrix after a state $`\rho `$ transmitting through this channel as

$$\rho ^{}=\epsilon ^p(\rho )=\left(1\mu \right)\rho +\mu \sigma _3\rho \sigma _3,$$
(17)
where $`\mu =\eta /2.`$ It can be easily seen that this channel is unital we can obtain its capacity by input a pair orthogonal states. By using the Bloch presentation we have

$`\rho _j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^p\left(\rho _j\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _j\right)& e^{i\phi }(12\mu )\mathrm{sin}\theta _j\\ e^{i\phi }(12\mu )\mathrm{sin}\theta _j& (1\mathrm{cos}\theta _j)\end{array}\right),`$
where $`j=1,2.`$ From above equation we known that when the prior probabilities $`p_1=p_2=\frac{1}{2},`$ $`S\left(\varrho ^p\right)=S\left(_jp_j\epsilon ^p\left(\rho _j\right)\right)`$ take its maximum value $`1bit`$ at $`\theta _2\theta _1=\pi `$ (orthogonal). Because the eigenvalues of $`\epsilon ^p(\rho _1)`$ at $`\theta _1=0,`$ are

$`\alpha _1^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{14\mu \left(1\mu \right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1}=1,`$
$`\alpha _2^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{14\mu \left(1\mu \right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1}=0.`$ (22)
Similarly, the eigenvalues of $`\epsilon ^p(\rho _1)`$ at $`\theta _1=\pi ,`$ are

$$\beta _1^p=1,\beta _2^p=0.$$
(23)
So the classical information capacity $`C_{pe}`$ of the phase damping channel is $`1bit`$ which corresponds to the input encoding states $`|0,`$ and $`|1.`$

Similarly, we can calculate the classical information capacities of bit flip, bit-phase flip, and phase flip channels.

$``$ Bit flip channel: The Kraus operators of bit flip channel are

$$E_0^{bf}=\sqrt{1\eta }I,E_1^{bf}=\sqrt{\eta }\sigma _1.$$
(24)
$``$ Bit-phase flip channel: It has Kraus operators as

$$E_0^{bpf}=\sqrt{1\eta }I,E_1^{bpf}=\sqrt{\eta }\sigma _2.$$
(25)
$``$ Phase flip channel: Its Kraus operators are

$$E_0^{pf}=\sqrt{1\eta }I,E_1^{pf}=\sqrt{\eta }\sigma _3.$$
(26)
The capacities of these channels are all $`1bit`$ which correspond to the input encoding states $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0+|1\right),`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|1\right)`$ $`\left(\text{bit flip channel}\right),`$ $`\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0+|1\right),`$ and $`\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0+|1\right)`$ $`\left(\text{bit-phase flip channel}\right),`$ $`|0,`$ and $`|1`$ $`\left(\text{phase flip channel}\right)`$. These results can also be intuitively seen from the evolution of Bloch spheres in these quantum channels, because their Bloch spheres have the same form as Bloch sphere in phase damping channel except for their directions NandCbook .

Now we investigate two-Pauli channel by using this method.

$``$ Two-Pauli channel: The Kraus operators of two-Pauli channel are

$$E_0^t=\sqrt{1\eta }I,E_1^t=\sqrt{\frac{\eta }{2}}\sigma _1,E_2^t=\sqrt{\frac{\eta }{2}}\sigma _2,$$
(27)
From Eqs.(1) and (27) we have

$`\rho _j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^t\left(\rho _j\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+(12\eta )\mathrm{cos}\theta _j& e^{i\phi }\left(1\eta \right)\mathrm{sin}\theta _j\\ e^{i\phi }\left(1\eta \right)\mathrm{sin}\theta _j& 1(12\eta )\mathrm{cos}\theta _j\end{array}\right),`$
From above equation we known $`S\left(\varrho ^t\right)=S\left(_jp_j\epsilon ^t\left(\rho _j\right)\right)`$ takes its maximum value $`1bit`$ at $`\theta _1\theta _2=\pi `$ when the prior probabilities $`p_1=p_2=\frac{1}{2}`$. The eigenvalues of $`\epsilon ^t(\rho _1)`$ are

$`\alpha _{1,2}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \sqrt{14\eta \left(1\eta \right)+\eta \left(23\eta \right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1}}{2}},`$
Similarly, the eigenvalues of $`\epsilon ^t(\rho _2)`$ are

$`\beta _{1,2}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{14\eta \left(1\eta \right)+\eta \left(23\eta \right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2}}{2}}.`$
So, when $`0<\eta <\frac{2}{3},`$ set $`\theta _1=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`\theta _2=\frac{\pi }{2},`$ $`\alpha _{1,2}^t=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\left(1\eta \right),`$ $`\beta _{1,2}^t=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\left(1\eta \right)`$ and when $`\frac{2}{3}\eta <1,`$ $`\alpha _{1,2}^t=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\left(2\eta 1\right)`$, $`\beta _{1,2}^t=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\left(2\eta 1\right)`$ which correspond to the minimum value of von Neumann entropies of $`\epsilon ^t(\rho _j^{}).`$ So the capacity of this channel is

$$C_{pe}^t=\{\begin{array}{c}1H\left(\frac{1}{2}\eta \right),0<\eta <\frac{2}{3},\\ 1H\left(\eta \right),\frac{2}{3}\eta <1.\end{array}$$
(34)
It has been shown that the Bloch sphere representation is a powerful tool for analyzing the classical information capacities of quantum noisy channels.

### I.3 By help with Stokes parametrization representation

As mention above, analytically solving the capacities with Bloch sphere representation is not perfect effective for non-unital quantum channels. At this rate, Stokes parametrization representation King01  may help us. In this subsection we will use Stokes parametrization representation to investigate the capacities of amplitude-damping channel Preskill  and “spraying” channel Fuchs97 . Before our furthermore research we review several concepts that will be used in the following.

$``$ The identity and Pauli matrices form a basis for $`C^{2\times 2}`$ so that any quantum state $`\rho `$ of qubit can be written as King01

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right),$$
(35)
where $`\stackrel{}{w}`$is real and $`\stackrel{}{w}C^3`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)^\tau `$ ($`\tau `$ denotes the transpose of matrix).

$``$ Any quantum state $`\rho `$ pass through a quantum noisy channel $`\epsilon `$ becomes King01

$`\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)\right)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I+\left(\stackrel{}{t}+T\stackrel{}{w}\right)\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right),`$
where

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\chi _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \chi _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \chi _3\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{t}=\left(\begin{array}{c}t_1\\ t_2\\ t_3\end{array}\right).$$
(37)
The unital maps correspond to $`\stackrel{}{t}=0.`$

$``$ Amplitude damping channel: From the Kraus operators of amplitude damping channel

$$E_0^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{1\eta }\end{array}\right),E_1^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sqrt{\eta }\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(38)
we can obtain that

$$\epsilon ^a\left(I\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\eta & 0\\ 0& 1\eta \end{array}\right)$$
(39)
which shows that it is a non-unital channel. From its Kraus operators we can know that the $`T`$ and $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ correspond to amplitude damping channel are

$$T^a=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{1\eta }& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{1\eta }& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\eta \end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{t}^a=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \eta \end{array}\right),$$
(40)
namely, $`\chi _1=\chi _2=\sqrt{1\eta },`$ $`\chi _3=1\eta ,`$ $`t_1=t_2=0,`$ $`t_3=\eta .`$ From Eq.(36) we can obtain the output state of input state $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)`$ as

$`\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I+\sqrt{1\eta }w_1\sigma _1+\sqrt{1\eta }w_2\sigma _2+\sigma _3\right),`$
Due to $`\chi _1=\chi _2>\chi _3,`$ and for $`0\eta 1`$in order to calculate the capacity we set $`w_1=1,`$ $`w_2=w_3=0.`$ Thus, we have

$$\rho ^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\eta & \chi _1\\ \chi _1& 1\eta \end{array}\right).$$
(42)
Because this channel is non-unital we do not know if orthogonal inputs can give the classical information capacity or not and we also do not know in advance what prior probabilities of input states give the maximum output information. In the following we consider the case of only a pair input encoding states. We suppose one of the input states denoted by $`\rho _1=\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)`$ and the other denoted by $`\rho _2=\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)`$, thus after the state $`\rho _1`$ transmitting though this channel we can obtain its output state as $`\rho _1^{}=\epsilon ^a\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)\right)`$ and state $`\rho _2`$ transmitting though this channel we can obtain its output state as $`\rho _2^{}=\epsilon ^a\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)\right).`$ As the Bloch sphere of the amplitude damping channel is symmetrical about its $`z`$ axes i.e. the axes of $`\theta =0`$ (the meaning of $`\theta `$ we refer the readers to Eq.(3)) $`\stackrel{}{w}^{}`$ would be obtained by rotating $`\stackrel{}{w}`$ with $`\psi `$ angle around the axes $`z`$, namely, $`\stackrel{}{w}^{}=R^a\stackrel{}{w},`$ where

$$R^a=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi & 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi & 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(43)
So we have

$$\rho _1^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\eta & \chi _1\\ \chi _1& 1\eta \end{array}\right),$$
(44)
the eigenvalues of which are

$$\alpha _{1,2}^a=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\eta +\eta ^2}.$$
(45)
$`\rho _2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^a\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)\right)`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\eta & \chi _1\mathrm{cos}\psi +i\chi _2\mathrm{sin}\psi \\ \chi _1\mathrm{cos}\psi i\chi _2\mathrm{sin}\psi & 1\eta \end{array}\right).`$
The eigenvalues of $`\rho _2^{}`$ are also

$$\beta _{1,2}^a=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\eta +\eta ^2}.$$
(50)
It is shown that the different output states have the same von Neumann entropy, namely,

$$_jp_jS(\rho _j^{})=H(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\eta +\eta ^2}),$$
(51)
which is nether correlative to prior probabilities nor to the angle $`\psi .`$ So in order to maximize the output information, i.e. obtain the capacity of this channel we only maximize $`S\left(\varrho ^a\right)=S\left(_jp_j\epsilon ^a\left(\rho _j\right)\right)`$. We set $`S\left(\varrho ^a\right)`$ gets its maximum when $`p_1=1\tau `$ and $`p_2=\tau ,`$ thus,

$`\varrho ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}p_i\rho _i^{}=\left(1\tau \right)\rho _1^{}+\tau \rho _2^{}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\eta & \xi \\ \xi & 1\eta \end{array}\right).`$
where $`\xi =\chi _1\left(1\tau +\tau \mathrm{cos}\psi i\mathrm{sin}\psi \right).`$ The eigenvalues of $`\varrho ^a`$ are

$$\gamma _{1,2}^a=\frac{1\pm \sqrt{\eta ^2+\chi _1^2(1A(1\mathrm{cos}\psi )}}{2},$$
(55)
where $`A=\tau \left(1\tau \right),`$ $`0<A<1.`$ When we take $`\psi =\pi `$ and $`\tau =\frac{1}{2},`$ we obtain the maximum value of $`S\left(\varrho ^a\right)=S\left(_jp_j\epsilon ^a\left(\rho _j\right)\right)=H(\frac{1\eta }{2}).`$ Thus, the classical information capacity $`C_{pe}`$ of amplitude channel is

$$C_{pe}^a=H(\frac{1\eta }{2})H(\frac{1\sqrt{1\eta +\eta ^2}}{2}).$$
(56)
In the following we will use this kind method to calculate the classical information capacity of “splaying” channel.

$``$ “splaying” channel: The $`T`$ and $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ correspond to this channel are

$$T^s=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{t}^s=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \frac{1}{3}\end{array}\right)$$
(57)
So the output state of input state $`\rho _1=\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)`$ is

$`\rho _1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^s\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I+\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)\right)`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[I+\chi _1w_1\sigma _1+\left(t_3+\chi _3w_3\right)\sigma _3\right]`$
Due to $`\chi _2=0,`$ $`\chi _1>\chi _3`$, in order to calculate the capacity we set $`w_1=1,`$ $`w_2=w_3=0.`$ Thus, we have

$$\rho _1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{3}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{3}\end{array}\right)$$
(59)
which has eigenvalues

$$\alpha _1^s=\frac{5}{6},\alpha _2^s=\frac{1}{6}.$$
(60)
Now we hope to find another state by which and $`\rho _1`$ construct a ensemble $`\{p_j,\rho _j\}`$ that make the splaying channel had maximum output information. Because of $`\chi _2=0,`$ we can generally obtain the state $`\rho _2`$ from $`\rho _1`$ by rotating $`\stackrel{}{w}`$ with $`\psi ^{}`$ angle, namely, $`\stackrel{}{w}^{}=R^s\stackrel{}{w},`$ where

$$R^s=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}& 0& \mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}& 0& \mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(61)
So the output state $`\rho _2^{}`$ is

$`\rho _2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^s\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(I+R^{}\stackrel{}{w}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)\right)`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[I+\chi _1\sigma _1\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}+\left(t_3\chi _3\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}\right)\sigma _3\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}& \frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}\end{array}\right).`$
The eigenvalues of $`\rho _2^{}`$ are

$$\beta _{1,2}^s=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{6}\sqrt{42\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ^{}}.$$
(65)
When $`p_1=p_2`$ we have

$`\varrho ^s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_j\epsilon ^s\left(\rho _j\right)`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4}{6}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{12}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}\right)\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{12}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}\right)& \frac{2}{6}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}\end{array}\right).`$
The eigenvalues of Eq.(68) are

$$\gamma _{1,2}^s=\frac{6\pm \sqrt{104\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ^{}+6\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}}}{12}.$$
(69)
Thus, the capacity can be obtained as

$$C_{pe}^s=\underset{\psi ^{}}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{H\left(A\right)\frac{1}{2}\left[H\left(B\right)+H\left(\frac{1}{6}\right)\right]\right\}.$$
(70)
where $`A=\left(6\sqrt{94\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}+\mathrm{cos}2\psi ^{}+6\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{}}\right)/12,`$ $`B=\left(3\sqrt{32\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}+\mathrm{cos}2\psi ^{}}\right)/6.`$ The numerical work shows that if the input states are orthogonal, namely, take $`\psi ^{}=3.14159red,`$ the information output is $`I_{pe}^s=0.268277bits`$ (which is bigger than that obtained in Fuchs97  a little bit). This is not the maximum output information. When the input states have angle $`\psi ^{}=3.20359red`$ (here, $`\psi ^{}=\pi `$ is the orthogonal case) we can obtain the maximum output information, namely the capacity, $`C_{pe}^s=0.268673bits.`$ This is also coincided with the result of Fuchs97 , qualitatively, but the quantity of capacity is less than that Fuchs’ result a little bit. By our method we also complete the demonstration that the splaying channel’s classical information capacity need not be achievable by orthogonal states.

## II Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated the classical information capacities $`C_{pe}`$ for some well-known quantum noisy channels by using different representations of qubit quantum states. It is shown that directly calculating capacity with solving eigenvalues of output states is very convenient but it only adapt to a few of channels. By using this method we investigate the classical information capacities $`C_{pe}`$ of depolarizing channel and erasure channel. We use of Bloch sphere representation of qubit quantum states calculating the capacities of phase damping cannel, two-Pauli cannel and flip channels. It shows that the Bloch sphere representation is convenient for analytically calculating the classical information capacities of some quantum noisy channels expressed by unital maps. We use of the Stokes parametrization representation investigating the classical information capacities of non-unital amplitude damping channel and splaying channel. To the former we have obtained a analytical result which has not been reported in other where to our knowledge, and to the latter our result is coincided with Fuchs’ original result qualitatively.

###### Acknowledgements.

This project partly supported by Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department under Grand No. 01C036


text:
# A NOTE ON THE COSMOLOGICAL DYNAMICS IN FINITE-RANGE GRAVITY

## I INTRODUCTION

Recently there has been renewed interest in the old idea that gravitons could have a small mass pauli . The fresh motivation for massive gravity may be attributed to the high precision experiments on the detection of gravitational waves like LIGO and LISA which, in a near future, may result in answering the question about the mass of gravitonswill ; larson ; cutler . Secondly it seems to be natural to look for an alternative to GR to incorporate the recently observed ”late time accelerated expansion” of the universe. Third, the higher dimensional gravity theories seem to naturally mimic the properties of four dimensional massive gravity and should be given serious thought dvali . Last but not the least it is more than desirable to incorporate the possibility of inflation without opting for an ad hoc mechanism to realize it. The massive gravity may or may not address all these issues.

Till very recently, the masses of gravitons were thought to come from Fierz-Pauli mass term added to Einstein Hilbert action. The model faces the well known mass discontinuity problem called Van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuityiwasaki ; vandam ; zakharov ; vains ; Fadeev ; visser ; kogan ; porati ; gulini ; dvali ; desser ; gruzinov ; veltman .It was very recently noticed by Babak and Grishchuk that this problem is very specific to the choice of Fierz-Pauli mass termbabak1 . In field theoretic formulation of Babak and Grishchukbabak1 ; babak , the mass term has the form, $`k_1h^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+k_2h`$ , where $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ is the nonlinear gravitational field propagating in the Minkowski space and ”h” denotes the tress of $`h^{\mu \nu }`$. Linear massive gravity is discussed in Refs.barinov ; mahesh ; lee . For a specific choice of parameters $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$: $`k_1+k_2=0`$, the local predictions of the model have finite difference with those of GR though the mass term in the Lagrangian smoothly vanishes for $`k_10`$. Babak and Grishchuk have demonstrated that everywhere on the parameter plane $`(k_1,k_2)`$ excluding the Fierz- Pauli straight line( $`k_2=k_1`$ ), the massive gravity theory proposed by them is free from discontinuity problembabak1 . The parameters $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are related to the masses of gravitons: $`\alpha `$ \- mass of spin-2 graviton and $`\beta `$ \- mass of the spin-0 graviton. The predictions of Babak-Grishchuk model are dramatic: their model has smooth limit to GR for $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$, the inclusion of a small mass term removes the black hole event horizon and makes the cosmological evolution oscillatory. Further, it is remarkable that if both the gravitons in the model are sacrificed to tachyons, the finite range gravity exhibits late time accelerated expansion of the universe. The miracle is done by the presence of massive scalar graviton. In case, the mass of scalar graviton is zero, Babak and Grishchuk have noticed that cosmology based upon the finite range gravity is identical to GR cosmology independently of the mass of spin-2 gravitonbabak1 . Hence the additional spin-0 graviton plays a central roll in finite-range gravity. For earlier references on field theoretic formulation of gravity see Refsfeynman ; petrova ; zel  and the work of Logunov and collaboratorslogunov . The non-linear bigravity theory recently discussed by Damour et al. seems to share many interesting features of the finite range gravity mentioned above damour .

Once the Fierz-Pauli choice for mass parameters is excluded, the success of the theory relies on existence of an additional scalar graviton. This is reminiscent of the manner in which a massive scalar boson was introduced by Veltman in the electroweak theory veltman , and suggestion contained in Ref. dva  that gauge bosons and massive graviton must necessarily be interpreted as multi-spin objects. In particular, it is anticipated that a finite-range gravity should endow graviton with spin 0, 1 and 2 components. However, in this work we shall strictly confine to the framework of Babak and Grishchuk.

In this note we investigate the phase space behavior of cosmological evolution in finite range gravity with both the gravitons behaving like tachyons. We demonstrate that the accelerated expansion is a late time attractor of the model.

### I.1 EVOLUTION EQUATIONS IN FINITE RANGE GRAVITY

The gravitational field in the massive gravity is described by a non-linear tensor field $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ propagating in the Minkowski space with metric $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ and with a massive term added to the GR part of the field Lagrangian which is quadratic in $`h_{;\tau }^{\mu \nu }`$ (covariant derivative is taken with respect to the metric $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$). The effective field equations have the formbabak1

$$G_{\mu \nu }+M_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the matter energy momentum tensor and the mass tensor $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$M_{\mu \nu }=\left(\delta _\mu ^\alpha \delta _\nu ^\beta \frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \nu }\right)\left(2k_1h_{\alpha \beta }+2k_2\gamma _{\alpha \beta }h\right)$$
(2)
where $`\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\gamma ^{\mu \nu }+h^{\mu \nu }\right)`$. In a homogeneous and isotropic situation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ depends upon time alone and the effective metric acquires the form

$$ds^2=b^2(t)dt^2a^2(t)\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right)$$
(3)
where a(t) and b(t) are given by the timt-time and space-space components of the tensor field $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ . The evolution equation for a(t) in massive gravity has the form

$$3\left(\frac{\dot{a(t)}}{a(t)}\right)^2+\frac{3\alpha ^2}{8(\zeta +2)}[y^3(14\zeta )\frac{1}{y}+\frac{2\zeta }{a^2}(y^23)]=\frac{8\pi G\rho _0}{a^{3(\omega +1)}}$$
(4)
where $`\alpha ^2=4k_1`$, $`\beta ^2=2k\left(k_1+4k_2\right)/(k_1+k_2)`$, $`\zeta =\beta ^2/\alpha ^2`$. The perfect fluid form of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is assumed and the equation of state is taken in the simple form, $`p=\omega \rho `$ with $`\omega `$ constant. In contrast to GR the function b(t) is not arbitrary and gets determined through a(t) itself ; there is an algebraic relation between a(t) and b(t) babak1 . This relation acquires a simple form for $`\zeta =1/4`$

$$y\frac{a}{b}=\frac{(1+\sqrt{7+9a^4})}{3a^2}$$
(5)
## II Phase Space Analysis

In this section we investigate the phase space behavior of cosmological evolution belinsky  in finite range gravity for both the gravitons behaving like tachyons, i.e, $`\alpha ^2,\beta ^2<0`$. For simplicity, we will be working with $`\zeta =1/4`$. The evolution equation ( 4 ) in this case for $`a>>1`$ and $`\omega =0`$, where interesting things are expected to happen, simplifies to

$$a^2(\tau )=\frac{a^1}{3}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_ma^2+\frac{7}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_ma^2+\frac{7}{18}\mathrm{\Lambda }_ma^4\mathrm{\Lambda }_m$$
(6)
and for $`a<<1`$

$$a^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m}{3}a^4+\frac{a^1}{3}$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m=\left(\frac{\left|\alpha \right|^2}{8(\zeta +2)}\right)\frac{1}{8\pi G\rho _0}`$, and prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`\tau =\sqrt{(8\pi G\rho _0)}t`$. In order to obtain the expression ( 6 ) we have used the following series expansion for $`y(a>>1)`$

$$y=1+\frac{7}{9}a^4+higherorderterms$$

Before proceeding further, a comment about Eq.( 6 ) is in order. From the point of view of GR ,Equation ( 6 ) can be thought as an effective Friedmann equation where the first term on the right hand side of this equation is the usual term contributed by the matter density and the rest of the terms containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$ originate from the Mass tensor appearing in the finite range gravity theory. The second term behaves like cosmological constant and is responsible for drawing the late time accelerated expansion in Babak-Grishchuk theory. It is remarkable that such a term automatically appears at late stages of evolution in massive gravity. The terms containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$ smoothly vanish in the mass-zero limit leaving behind the usual Freedmann equation. It is surprising that an arbitrarily small mass of gravitons can change the character of evolution, turning deceleration into acceleration.The third term in Eq. 6 mimics radiation whereas the last term looks like curvature term. It is interesting to notice that Eq. 6 looks formally similar to the effective Friedmann equation in brane-world cosmology langlois . It should however be kept in mind that unlike the FRW cosmology where the numerical value of the scale factor does not carry any physical significance and the scale factor can be made larger or smaller than one at any given epoch, such a choice no longer exists in massive gravity. As already mentioned, the function b(t) is not arbitrary in Babak-Grishchuk theory, it gets determined through a(t) via Eq. 4 which clearly shows that the numerical value of scale factor is indeed important. Eq. 6 is valid for large values of ”a” and in this regime out of all the terms containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$, the second term is most dominant which is to compete with the first term allowing ultimately the transition to acceleration. It is further important to mention, as pointed out by Babak and Grishchukbabak1 , that for no values of parameters, $`\dot{a}=0`$ in the present case ( however, for $`\alpha ^2,\beta ^2>0`$, the scale factor goes through regular maximum and minimum). At early times, the evolution of universe is described by Eq. 7. The first term on the right hand side (RHS) of this equation dominates at early epochs and mimics stiff equation of state.

It would be suggestive to recast the expression ( 6 ) to look like Newton equation in one dimensionsahni

$$a^{^{\prime \prime }}(\tau )=\frac{d}{da}V(a)$$
(8)
with the first integral of motion

$$E=\frac{a^2}{2}+V(a)=0$$
(9)
where $`V(a)`$ is given by the expression,

$$V(a)=\frac{a^1}{6}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m}{2}a^2\frac{7}{12}\mathrm{\Lambda }_ma^2\frac{7}{36}\mathrm{\Lambda }_ma^4+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m}{2}$$
(10)
The potential V(a) is plotted in Fig.1. The system, in the present case, has sufficient kinetic energy to surmount the potential barrier and, consequently, the scale factor passes through a point of inflection at which the deceleration changes into acceleration.

In order to analyze the dynamics of the system we recast the equation ( 8 ) in the following form

$$v^{}=uv$$
(11)
$$u^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_m\frac{7}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_mv^4\frac{7}{9}\mathrm{\Lambda }_mv^6\frac{v^3}{6}u^2$$
(12)
where

$$v=\frac{1}{a},u=\frac{a^{}}{a}$$

. The constraint equation ( 9 ) takes the form

$$\frac{u^2}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m}{2}v^2+\frac{7}{12}\mathrm{\Lambda }_mv^4+\frac{7}{36}\mathrm{\Lambda }_mv^6+\frac{v^3}{6}$$
(13)
To find out the critical points we set right-hand side (RHS) of Eqs. (11) and (12) to zero and we obtain two fixed points

$$u_{cr}=0,v_{cr}=v_0$$

and

$$v_{cr}=0,u_{cr}=+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}$$

where $`v_0`$ is a solution of the algebraic equation

$$\frac{7}{9}\mathrm{\Lambda }_mv_0^6+\frac{7}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_mv_0^4+\frac{v_0^3}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_m=0$$
(14)
$`v_{cr}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m)^{1/2}`$ is not relevant here. At the first critical point, $`a^{}(\tau )=0`$ and this is not possible in the present case i .e, for $`\alpha ^2,\beta ^2<0`$. Indeed, omitting terms of higher order than $`v^3`$ in equation ( 14 ), one gets the approximate value of $`v_0(6\mathrm{\Lambda }_m)^{1/3}`$. This critical point violates the constraint equation ( 13 ) and therefore should be discarded. The second critical point which satisfies the constraint equation ( 13 ) is very interesting, $`u_{cr}=+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m)^{1/2}`$ means that

$$a^{}(\tau )/a(\tau )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^{1/2}ora(\tau )e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^{1/2}\tau }$$

and $`v_{cr}=0`$ means that the exponential behavior is approached asymptotically for large values of $`a(\tau )`$. Thus, this scenario describes a rapidly accelerating universe eternally at late times and like any other generic model of quintessence, the finite-range theory of gravity will also be faced with the problem of future event horizonfischler . In order to check the stability of the critical point we perturb about fixed point $`(0,+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2})`$

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`v_{cr}+\delta v`$
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`u_{cr}+\delta u`$
Plugging these in ( 11 ) and ( 12 ) and keeping only linear terms we get

$$\delta v^{}=u_{cr}\delta v$$
(15)
$$\delta u^{}=2u_{cr}\delta u$$
(16)
with the solutions

$$\delta ve^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}\tau }and\delta ue^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}\tau }$$

which clearly demonstrate the stability of the critical point under small perturbations. As the system evolves, the point moves in the (u, v) plane along the curve given by the constraint equation ( 13 ) on which lies the critical point. Stability guarantees that the motion will take place towards the critical pont. We have evolved the system numerically for different values of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$, we find that trajectories starting anywhere in the phase space, consistent with the constraint, end up at the stable fixed point as shown in Fig. 2. Therefore the accelerated expansion is a late time attractor of finite range gravity.

To summarize, we have considered the cosmological evolution in the massive gravity theory proposed by Babak and Grishchuk. We have investigated the phase space behavior of the system in case both the massive gravitons in the theory are tachyons. We find that late time acceleration is an attractor of the system.We therefore conclude that the late time accelerated expansion is a generic solution of Babak-Grishchuk theory which does not require any speculative form of matter to achieve it. It would be interesting to confront the predictions of Babak-Grishchuk theory with observations and investigate the constraints imposed by supernova results on the massive gravity.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am thankful to L. P. Grishchuk, Stanislav Babak, V. Sahni, T. Padmanabhan, T. Qureshi and D. V. Ahluwalia for useful discussions. I am also thankful to A. S. Gupta for bringing the paper of Babak and Grishchuk to my attention.


text:
# First order superconducting transition near a ferromagnetic quantum critical point

## Abstract

We address the issue of how triplet superconductivity emerges in an electronic system near a ferromagnetic quantum critical point (FQCP). Previous studies found that the superconducting transition is of second order, and $`T_c`$ is strongly reduced near the FQCP due to pair-breaking effects from thermal spin fluctuations. In contrast, we demonstrate that near the FQCP, the system avoids pair-breaking effects by undergoing a first order transition at a much larger $`T_c`$. A second order superconducting transition emerges only at some distance from the FQCP.

Superconductivity near a magnetic instability is a topic of current interest in condensed-matter physics. Magnetically mediated pairing near an antiferromagnetic instability is a candidate scenario for $`d`$wave superconductivity in the cuprates and heavy fermions compounds (for a recent review see pines ). The emergence of superconductivity, mediated by the exchange of ferromagnetic spin fluctuations, is also expected near ferromagnetic transitions. Ferromagnetic exchange yields Cooper pairs with $`S=1`$ and therefore generally gives rise to triplet superconductivity. This type of pairing was originally suggested by Anderson and Morel am  for $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. In recent years, an intensive search has focused on superconductivity in compounds which can be tuned to a ferromagnetic quantum critical point (FQCP) by varying either pressure or chemical composition. Among the studied systems are MnSi, and the heavy fermion compound UGe2 (for an experimental review, see Ref. fm-hf ).

The emergence of superconductivity in electronic systems close to a ferromagnetic instability has recently been studied by three groups, who solved a linearized gap equation within the Eliashberg formalism lonzarich ; bedell ; millis . For both two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) systems, their analysis yielded a superconducting transition temperature, $`T_c^l`$ (’l’ stands for linearized), that substantially decreases as the system approaches criticality, eventually vanishing at the FQCP.

The physical origin of the decrease in $`T_c^l`$ near the FQCP lies in the presence of thermal spin fluctuations which behave like magnetic impurities whose scattering potential diverges as the critical point is approached lonzarich ; bedell ; millis . This behavior is reflected in the fermionic self-energy in the normal state, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega _n)iT_m\mathrm{sign}(\omega _n)\chi _L(\omega _m\omega _n)`$, where $`\chi _L(\omega )=d^{D1}q\chi (q,\omega )`$ is the “local” spin susceptibility. Since $`\chi _L(\omega =0)`$ diverges at the FQCP for $`D3`$ (assuming $`\chi (q,0)=\chi _0/(\xi ^2+q^2)`$ with $`\xi \mathrm{}`$), the dominant contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega _n)`$ comes from the $`n=m`$ term in the frequency sum, i.e., from classical, thermal spin fluctuations. These fluctuations scatter with a finite momentum and zero frequency transfer; hence their similarity with magnetic impurities. This leads to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )=i\gamma \mathrm{sign}\omega `$ with $`\gamma T\xi ^{3D}`$ for system dimension $`D<3`$ and $`\gamma T\mathrm{log}\xi `$ for $`D=3`$.

The analogy with magnetic impurities extends to the pairing problem in which thermal spin fluctuations close to the FQCP tend to break Cooper pairs and hence lower the temperature of the superconducting transitionag\_2 . This strong pair breaking effect is reflected in the gap equation where the divergent contributions to the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ and to the pairing vertex are not cancelled out in the equation for the pairing gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ Lit92  (the ratio of divergent terms is 3 to 1 in our case). Simple estimates show that the linearized gap equation does not have a solution above $`\gamma T_{c0}`$ where $`T_{c0}`$ is the transition temperature in the absence of thermal fluctuations. Hence, when the FQCP is approached, $`T_c^l`$ vanishes as $`T_c^l\xi ^{D3}`$ in $`D<3`$, and $`T_c^l1/\mathrm{log}\xi `$ for $`D=3`$. Numerical solutions of the linearized Eliashberg equations near a ferromagnetic instability demonstrate precisely this kind of behavior - $`T_c^l`$ falls off when the FQCP is approached - more rapidly in $`2D`$ lonzarich  than in $`3D`$ bedell ; millis  (Refs. bedell ; millis  obtained a small finite $`T_c^l`$ at criticality by using a self-consistent approach that goes beyond Eliashberg theory for the self-energy, but still neglects vertex corrections).

In this letter, we argue that the actual behavior of the system is different from that discussed in Refs. lonzarich ; bedell ; millis . Specifically, we show that close to a FQCP, superconductivity emerges via a first order phase transition at $`T_cT_{c0}`$. The much smaller $`T_c^l`$ previously obtained by solving the linearized gap equation is just the end point of the temperature hysteresis loop, at which the normal state becomes unstable. The first indication that the pairing problem near the FQCP is unconventional comes from the observation that at $`T=0`$, dangerous thermal fluctuations are absent, and hence the pairing gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ should generally be of the order of $`T_{c0}`$. Explicit calculations confirm this (see below). The second indication is that in the presence of a large gap, the spectrum of ferromagnetic spin fluctuations changes due to feedback effects from the pairing. For the ABM phase of triplet superconductivity, which we consider in the following, this feedback is different for $`\chi _{zz}`$ and $`\chi _\pm `$ am  (assuming that the spin of the Cooper pair, $`\stackrel{}{S}_{cp}`$, lies in the xy-plane). At the FQCP, massless excitations survive in $`\chi _\pm `$, but not in $`\chi _{zz}`$ which in the presence of a pairing gap describes massive longitudinal spin fluctuations. Due to this distinction between $`\chi _\pm `$ and $`\chi _{zz}`$, the ratio of the divergent terms in the self-energy and the pairing vertex is $`\left[2\chi _\pm ^L(0)+\chi _{zz}^L(0)\right]/\left[2\chi _\pm ^L(0)\chi _{zz}^L(0)\right]`$. If $`\chi _\pm ^L`$ and $`\chi _{zz}^L`$ behaved identically, this ratio would be $`3`$, and pair-breaking effects of thermal fluctuations would be crucial. When only $`\chi _\pm ^L(0)`$ diverges, the above ratio is $`1`$ and the divergent terms from the fermionic self-energy and the pairing vertex cancel out in the gap equation. This in turn implies that the superconducting state with a large gap remains stable well above $`T_c^l`$. This behavior, however, cannot extend to small $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ since then $`\chi _{zz}^L(0)`$ cannot be neglected, the above ratio of divergent terms becomes $`3`$ and no cancellation occurs. We therefore expect that at the FQCP, the solution with a finite gap should survive up to the end point at $`T_c^{nl}T_{c0}T_c^l`$ (’nl’ stands for the solution of the nonlinear equation) where it becomes unstable. In other words, over some range of $`T`$, both the normal state and the state with a large gap are locally stable. This is a classic scenario for a first order transition. Note, that this behavior is very different from that for singlet pairing, mediated by antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations, where the divergent contributions to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ and to the pairing vertex cancel each other even in the linearized gap equation. As a result, the divergence of the thermal self-energy at criticality does not affect $`T_c^l`$ acf  which saturates at a finite value for $`\xi =\mathrm{}`$.

In the remainder of this paper we compute $`T_c^{nl}`$ from the full set of nonlinear Eliashberg equations and show that it saturates at a finite value at the FQCP. We will not attempt to compute the actual $`T_c`$ (this would require the analysis of the condensation energy). However, since $`T_c^l`$ vanishes at the FQCP and $`T_c^{nl}`$ stays finite, $`T_c`$ near criticality should be comparable to $`T_c^{nl}`$.

Our starting point is the spin-fermion model, which describes the interaction of low-energy fermions with their own spin degrees of freedom, $`𝐒_𝐪`$, whose propagator is peaked at $`q=0`$. The same model was used in earlier studies abanov\_review ; lonzarich ; bedell ; millis ; acf . We assume that $`T_{c0}`$ is much less than the Fermi energy $`E_F`$, implying that the pairing instability involves only fermions near the Fermi surface. The model is described by the Hamiltonian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\alpha }{}}𝐯_𝐅(𝐤𝐤_F)c_{𝐤,\alpha }^{}c_{𝐤,\alpha }+{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\chi ^1(𝐪)𝐒_𝐪𝐒_𝐪`$ (1)
$`+g{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪,𝐤,\alpha ,\beta }{}}c_{𝐤+𝐪,\alpha }^{}\sigma _{\alpha ,\beta }c_{𝐤,\beta }𝐒_𝐪.`$
where the spin-fermion coupling, $`g`$, the Fermi velocity, $`v_F`$ (we assume a circular Fermi surface), and the static spin propagator $`\chi (q,0)`$ are input parameters. While the upper energy cutoff is in general also an input parameter, our results are cutoff independent for the pairing problem considered here. The dynamical part of $`\chi (q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=\chi _0/[q^2+\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)]`$ arises from the interaction with the low-energy fermions and is explicitly calculated. While we restrict our consideration to $`D=2`$, our conclusions are also valid for $`3D`$ systems.

We assume that the static $`\chi (q,0)`$ has the conventional lorentzian form with a weakly temperature dependent $`\xi `$. This form of $`\chi (q,0)`$ was recently questioned bkv ; millis2  since far away from criticality, the static spin susceptibility possesses singular low-energy Fermi liquid corrections that give rise to a universal $`|q|`$ dependence of $`\chi (q,0)`$, and a $`T`$ dependence of $`\xi ^1`$. It is unclear, however, whether these singular corrections survive in the quantum critical regime, so we restrict with the conventional form of $`\chi (q,0)`$ without further justifications.

Near the critical point, a conventional perturbation theory in the spin-fermion coupling (for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Pi }=0`$ is the point of departure) holds in powers of $`\lambda =g^2\chi _0/(4\pi v_F\xi ^1)`$, i.e., the quantum-critical region falls into the strong coupling limit. An approach for dealing with a strong coupling problem is the Eliashberg theory eliash . Its validity requires certain conditions to be met. We proceed assuming that the Eliashberg theory is valid, and then discuss what restrictions are necessary.

We first consider the situation right at the FQCP where $`\xi ^1=0`$. In the normal state, the dynamical part of the spin polarization operator, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$, is independent of the fermionic self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q,\omega _n)`$ (but not vice versa), as the essential momenta for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ are those with $`v_Fq\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. As a result, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ has the same form as for free fermions, i.e., for $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_m|v_Fq`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=F(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)/(v_Fq)`$ where $`F(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=\alpha k_F^2|\mathrm{\Omega }_m|`$, $`\alpha =g^2\chi _0/(2\pi E_F)`$, and $`E_F=k_Fv_F/2`$. At the same time, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ is determined by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega _m)=\omega _0^{1/3}\omega _m^{2/3}`$, where $`\omega _0=(3\sqrt{3}/4)\alpha ^2E_F`$. The non-Fermi liquid, $`\omega ^{2/3}`$-dependence of the self-energy in 2D is due to the divergence of the perturbation theory at the FQCP. This form was earlier obtained in Ref. aim .

In the superconducting state, the equations for two components of $`F(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ ($`F_{zz}`$ and $`F_{xx}=F_{yy}`$) are coupled to the equation for the pairing gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$. Similar to the normal state, none of these quantities explicitly depends on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. As a result, one needs to self-consistently solve a set of three coupled equations for the two components of $`F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The derivation of the Eliashberg equations is quite straightforward and will not be presented here. With the Cooper pair spin lying in the xy-plane, the coupled equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$, $`F_{zz}(\mathrm{\Omega })=F_{}`$ and $`F_{xx}=F_{yy}=F_+`$ at the FQCP have the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega _n\right)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{9}}\omega _0^{1/3}T{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega _m^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\omega _m)}}}`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _m}{\left[F_+(T,\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _m\omega _n)\right]^{1/3}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _m)}{\omega _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega _n\right)}{\omega _n}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m}{\left[F_{}(T,\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _m\omega _n)\right]^{1/3}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _m)}{\omega _m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega _n\right)}{\omega _n}}]\}`$ (2)
and

$`F_\pm (T,\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _m\omega _n)=`$
$`\pi T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _n(\omega _m)\pm \mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _n)\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _m)}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\omega _n)}\sqrt{\omega _m^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\omega _m)}}}\right]`$ (3)
As anticipated, $`F_+(T,\mathrm{\Delta },0)=0`$ vanishes implying that the corresponding susceptibilities, $`\chi _{xx}`$ and $`\chi _{yy}`$, describe massless modes. The vanishing of $`F_+(T,\mathrm{\Delta },0)`$, however, is not dangerous as it is compensated by the simultaneous vanishing of the numerator in Eq.(2). Exactly the same cancellation of divergences occurs in the gap equation for $`d`$-wave pairing due to antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations. The vanishing of $`F_{}(T,\mathrm{\Delta },0)`$ would be dangerous, but for finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`F_{}(T,\mathrm{\Delta },0)=2\pi T_n\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\omega _n)/\sqrt{\omega _n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\omega _n)}`$ is also finite, i.e. the longitudinal spin excitation described by $`\chi _{zz}^1(\omega =0)q^2+F_{}(T,\mathrm{\Delta },0)/(v_Fq)`$ is massive. In contrast, for the linearized gap equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is vanishingly small, $`F_{}(T,\mathrm{\Delta },0)`$ vanishes, and the r.h.s of Eq.(2) diverges. Due to this divergence, the linearized gap equation does not have a solution down to $`T=0`$. Note, that the only energy scale in the Eliashberg equations is $`\omega _0`$, which can be eliminated by rescaling both temperature and the gap in units of $`\omega _0`$. The gap equation is then fully universal, which implies that the mass in $`\chi _{zz}`$ and the typical momentum $`q`$ for the pairing problem are both of order $`\omega _0/v_F`$.

In Fig. 1a we present the numerical solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ at the lowest Matsubara frequency, $`\omega _m=\pi T`$. As expected for a first order phase transition, the gap changes discontinuously from a finite value to zero at $`T_c^{nl}0.015\omega _0`$. The inset shows that the discontinuous jump in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ occurs for all Matsubara frequencies.

We next study the situation at finite $`\xi `$ and verify whether the first order superconducting transition becomes second order at some distance from the FQCP. Away from criticality, the equations for $`F_\pm (T,\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _m)`$ retain their form, but in the gap equation, the factors $`F_\pm (T,\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _m)`$ are replaced by $`F_\pm (T,\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _m)/I^3(\beta _\pm )`$, where $`I(\beta _\pm )`$ by itself depends on $`F_\pm (T,\mathrm{\Delta },\omega _m)`$ through

$$I(\beta _\pm )=\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x}{1+\beta _\pm x+x^3},$$
(4)
Here $`\beta _\pm =b/[F_\pm (T,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Omega }_m)/\omega _0]^{2/3}`$, and $`b=(8/3\sqrt{3})^{2/3}(\alpha k_F\xi )^2`$ measures the deviation from the FQCP ($`b=0`$ at the FQCP). The integral can be expressed in elementary functions. One can easily verify that for finite $`\xi `$, the gap equation does not contain any divergence, even at infinitesimally small $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and hence both $`T_c^{nl}`$ and $`T_c^l`$ are nonzero.

In Fig. 1b we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T,i\pi T)`$ for $`b=2`$. We clearly see that the temperature dependence of the gap is now continuous, in marked distinction to Fig. 1a. The inset shows that the continuous evolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ holds for all Matsubara frequencies. This result implies that for large enough $`b>b_c`$, the transition is of second order. To locate the tricritical point $`b=b_c`$, we plot in Fig. 1c the magnitude of the jump of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T,i\pi T)`$ at $`T_c^{nl}`$ as a function of $`b`$. We see that the gap discontinuity disappears at $`b_c1.2`$. For completeness, in Fig. 1d we plot the zero temperature gap versus $`b`$. We see that it changes gradually, without a singularity at $`b_c`$.

The phase diagram that emerges from our studies is presented in Fig. 2. The actual superconducting transition temperature lies between $`T_c^l`$ and $`T_c^{nl}`$ and hence remains finite at $`b=0`$. For $`0.9b<b_c`$, the jump in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at $`T_c^{nl}`$, and consequently the difference between $`T_c^l`$ and $`T_c^{nl}`$ is small but finite (see Fig. 1c). The insert shows the reduction of $`T_c`$ at large $`b`$ due to the decrease in the effective coupling.

The functional form of $`T_c^l(b)`$ obtained above agrees qualitatively with that found earlier by Monthoux and Lonzarich lonzarich . Their result for the maximum $`T_c^l`$ is $`T_{c,max}^l0.016\omega _0b^{3/2}`$. Substituting $`b0.8`$, where $`T_c^l`$ is maximal in our case, we obtain $`T_{c,max}^l0.011\omega _0`$, consistent with our result $`T_{c,max}^l0.013\omega _0`$.

Finally, the validity of the Eliashberg treatment requires that three conditions be satisfied. First, typical bosonic momenta $`q_B`$ should be much larger than typical fermionic $`|kk_F|`$, i.e., bosons should be slow modes compared to fermions, leading to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$. A straightforward analysis shows that the typical $`q_B\alpha k_F`$, while the typical $`|kk_F|\omega _0/v_F\alpha ^2k_F`$. The Eliashberg theory is therefore valid if $`\alpha 1`$, i.e., $`\omega _0E_F`$. This in turn implies that the physical behavior of the system is universally determined by only low energy excitations. Second, vertex corrections should be small. Generally, this is not possible for typical $`q_Bk_F`$, as vertex corrections scale with $`\xi `$. However, for $`\alpha 1`$, we only require the vertex for $`\mathrm{\Omega }v_Fq`$ since the typical $`v_Fq_B`$ well exceeds the typical $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _0`$. In this limit, vertex corrections are much smaller and only scale as $`\mathrm{log}\xi `$. They are still non-negligible at the FQCP, where they change the pole in the spin susceptibility into a branch cut abanov\_review . However, we verified that, as in the antiferromagnetic case acf , this only leads to a small renormalization of the prefactors in the gap equation. Third, one should be able to neglect the momentum dependence of the pairing gap, while preserving the gap symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{n}k_F)=\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{n}k_F)`$. This approximation is again justified by $`\alpha 1`$, as in this limit, the typical momentum transfers along the Fermi surface $`\delta kq_B\alpha k_F`$ are much smaller than $`k_F`$. In this situation, the momentum variation of the gap at typical $`\delta k`$ only introduces $`O(1)`$ corrections to the Eliashberg theory acf , which can be safely neglected. Note in passing that the smallness of $`\delta kk_F`$ makes our theory also applicable to real materials (in which a crystalline structure imposes additional constraints on the order parameter symmetry VG ), as it allows one to consider the pairing problem in a local-momentum approximation, ignoring the peculiarities of the gap’s momentum dependence.

In summary, we showed that near a FQCP, spin fluctuation exchange gives rise to a strong first order transition into a $`p`$wave superconducting state. By choosing a first order transition, the system avoids divergent pair-breaking effects from thermal spin fluctuations. As a result, $`T_c`$ saturates at a nonzero value at criticality. The first order transition persists up to a finite distance from the FQCP, where it becomes second order.

It is our pleasure to thank A. Abanov, D. Khveschenko, D. Pines, A. Tsvelik and Z. Wang for useful discussions. The research was supported by NSF DMR-9979749 (A. Ch.), BSF-1999354 (A.C and A. F) and by DR Project 200153 and the Department of Energy, under contract W-7405-ENG-36. (R.H.) A.C. and D.M. would like to thank Los Alamos National Laboratory for its hospitality during the completion of this project.


text:
# A dipole in a dielectric: Intriguing results and shape dependence of the distant electric field

## I Introduction

Historically, electromagnetism, and particularly electrostatics, has been a rich source of beautiful mathematical physics problems, most of which are quite standard by now. Yet, from time to time, a closer look at certain simple and seemingly exhausted problems might surprise even the experienced practitioner. We start by discussing the elementary problem of determining the electrostatic field produced by a pure (point) dipole embedded in the bulk of an infinite linear dielectric medium. This problem is solved by two apparently equivalent methods. The first makes use of an elementary argument found in textbooks and the other consists of putting the dipole at the center of a spherical hole in the dielectric and then letting the radius of the hole tend to zero. The discrepancy between the results might surprise the reader as much as it surprised the authors. The discrepancy is corroborated by the same limiting procedure applied to a uniformly polarized sphere embedded in the dielectric.

Next we solve for the electrostatic field of a uniformly polarized spheroid in an infinite dielectric. This solution is an interesting exercise in mathematical physics involving in a simple way Legendre functions of the second kind, which are seldom used in the standard electromagnetism textbooks. We find that the asymptotic potential exhibits a shape dependence. By taking appropriate limits, we recover either the elementary textbook answer or the previous result found for the polarized sphere. The dependence of the electrostatic potential on the shape of the spheroid, even after taking the limit in which the spheroid shrinks away keeping a finite dipole moment, is unexpected and to a certain extent non-intuitive. This physical effect appears to have been overlooked by standard textbooks.

## II Field of a Dipole in a Dielectric

The problem of obtaining the field produced by a dipole in a dielectric medium is one of those elementary problems that is present (solved or proposed) in a variety of textbooks. The well-known solution is trivial. The physical dipole consists of two opposite point charges ($`q`$ and $`q`$) separated by the distance $`d`$. Letting $`d0`$ with $`qd=p_0`$ gives the pure dipole. Because in a linear dielectric medium Gauss’ law $`𝐃\mathrm{𝐝𝐚}=q`$ establishes that each of the charges $`q`$ and $`q`$ will be screened by polarization charges to $`q^{}=qϵ_0/ϵ`$, the dipole moment will be screened by the same factor, so that the actual (effective) dipole moment is

$$p=p_0\frac{ϵ_0}{ϵ}.$$
(1)
Equation (1) is the answer found in standard textbooks (see Ref. Griffiths,  for example). In other words, for a point dipole parallel to the $`z`$-axis and located at the origin, the electrostatic potential inside the infinite linear dielectric medium in spherical coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)=\frac{p}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2},$$
(2)
with $`p`$ given by Eq. (1).

Now let us solve the “same” problem by putting the pure dipole $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at the center of an empty spherical hole of radius $`R`$ cut out of the dielectric medium and then letting $`R0`$. It is appropriate to make use of the general solution to Laplace’s equation in spherical coordinates for problems with azimuthal symmetry. It is easy to see that the boundary conditions can be satisfied by taking only the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ term of the azimuthally symmetric general solution, so the electrostatic potential inside the hole is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(𝐫)=Ar\mathrm{cos}\theta +\frac{p_0}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2},(0<r<R)$$
(3a)
and the potential outside is
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(𝐫)=\frac{p^{}}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}.(r>R)$$
(3b)
Note that inside the hole the singular term corresponds to the pure dipole singularity with dipole moment $`p_0`$, because the dipole is in vacuum. Outside, only the term that decreases with $`r`$ is present, with the factor $`p^{}`$ to be determined. By requiring the continuity of the scalar potential (equivalent to the continuity of the tangential component of the electric field) and of the radial component of the electric displacement vector ($`𝐃^{(1)}=ϵ_0\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ and $`𝐃^{(2)}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}`$) at the boundary $`r=R`$, we obtain

$`ϵ_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}{r}}|_{r=R}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}}{r}}|_{r=R},`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(R).`$ (5)
The application of the boundary conditions in Eqs. (4) and (5) leads to the equations

$`ϵ_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2p^0}{4\pi ϵ_0R^3}}A\right]`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2p^{}}{4\pi ϵ_0R^3}},`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p^0}{4\pi ϵ_0R^2}}+AR`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{4\pi ϵ_0R^2}},`$ (7)
whose solution is

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(ϵ_0ϵ)}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{4\pi ϵ_0R^3}}`$ (8)
$`p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3ϵ_0}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}}p_0.`$ (9)
According to Eqs. (8) and (9), the electrostatic potential outside the hole is that of a point dipole in vacuum with effective dipole moment $`p^{}`$ given by Eq. (9). In the limit $`R0`$, the dipole potential everywhere except at the origin is given by Eq. (3b) with $`p^{}`$ determined by Eq. (9). Surprisingly, this effective dipole moment disagrees with the one given in Eq. (1) by means of the previous elementary argument.

The reason for the discrepancy appears to be the lack of commutativity of two successive limits. The result (1) corresponds to putting the two opposite charges outside the hole in the dielectric, letting the radius of the hole tend to zero first, and then making the distance between the charges arbitrarily small, thus creating a dipole at the origin. To obtain the result (9), we first let the distance between the charges tend to zero, creating a point dipole at the center of the hole, and only later do we make the radius of the hole arbitrarily small. A physical explanation for the discrepancy is that in the first case, but not in the second case, the charges are always screened by the dielectric.

We might argue that the dipole moment associated with the polarization charges on the surface of the hole added to $`p_0`$ leads to a total dipole moment given by Eq. (9), which is in fact vindicated by an explicit calculation. This argument, however, misses the point. The surprise comes from the fact that, if only the free dipole moment $`p_0`$ is considered, its reduction by the dielectric constant factor does not account for the screening effect due to the polarization of the medium. This behavior contrasts sharply with that of a point charge at the center of the hole, whose field in the interior of the dielectric is obtained by simply replacing the free charge $`q`$ by $`qϵ_0/ϵ`$ in the vacuum field.

## III Uniformly Polarized Sphere in a Dielectric

To check the previous result in Eq. (9) and allow for a generalization in Sec. IV, let us consider a uniformly polarized sphere (electret) of radius $`R`$, with polarization $`𝐏`$ along the $`z`$ axis, $`𝐏=P_0\widehat{𝐤}`$, surrounded by an infinite dielectric whose dielectric constant is $`ϵ`$. The potential has no singularity inside the sphere, so we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(𝐫)=Br\mathrm{cos}\theta (0<r<R)$$
(10a)
for the potential inside the sphere, while the potential outside is
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(𝐫)=\frac{p^{}}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}.(r>R)$$
(10b)
We now notice that $`𝐃^{(1)}=ϵ_0\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}+𝐏`$ and apply the same boundary conditions as before to obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵp^{}}{4\pi ϵ_0R^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0B+P_0`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{4\pi ϵ_0R^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`B,`$ (12)
which are solved by

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}},`$ (13)
$`p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ϵ_0}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}}R^3P_0.`$ (14)
The resulting electrostatic potential inside the polarized sphere is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(𝐫)=\frac{P_0}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,(0<r<R)$$
(15a)
and the potential outside is
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(𝐫)=\frac{R^3P_0}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}.(r>R)$$
(15b)
If we let $`R0`$ and $`P_0\mathrm{}`$ in such a way that $`p_0=(4/3)\pi R^3P_0`$ remains fixed, we would expect to recover the point dipole $`𝐩_0`$ at the origin embedded in the infinite dielectric. In such a limit, the potential everywhere except at the origin becomes

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(𝐫)=\frac{3ϵ_0}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{p_0\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}.(r>0)$$
(16)
This result coincides with the $`R0`$ limit of the previous problem of the point dipole at the center of an empty sphere inside the dielectric.

Here, again, the dipole moment of the polarization charges on the spherical surface of the dielectric leads to the total dipole moment (9). Thus, the field inside the dielectric is obtained from the vacuum field by reducing the free dipole moment by a factor that differs from the screening factor for a point charge.

## IV Uniformly Polarized Spheroid in a Dielectric

To put the results of Sec. III in a broader context, which will make possible a further investigation of the origin of the discrepancy encountered above, we will examine a third “interpolating” problem. Consider a uniformly polarized hole (electret) in the dielectric medium with the shape of a spheroid (an ellipsoid of revolution).

### IV.1 The Oblate Case

The oblate spheroidal coordinates are defined by (see Ref. Arfken,  for example)

$$\begin{array}{c}x=a\mathrm{cosh}\mu \mathrm{sin}v\mathrm{cos}\phi \hfill \\ y=a\mathrm{cosh}\mu \mathrm{sin}v\mathrm{sin}\phi \hfill \\ z=a\mathrm{sinh}\mu \mathrm{cos}v,\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
with $`\mu 0`$, $`0v\pi `$, $`0\phi 2\pi `$, and $`a`$ a positive real number. The surface of the spheroid is defined by $`\mu =\mu _0`$, while its interior is determined by $`\mu <\mu _0`$. It is easy to see that the surface of the spheroid is given in cartesian coordinates by

$$\frac{x^2}{X^2}+\frac{y^2}{X^2}+\frac{z^2}{Z^2}=1,$$
(18)
where $`X=a\mathrm{cosh}\mu _0`$ and $`Z=a\mathrm{sinh}\mu _0`$, so that $`X>Z`$. The ellipsoid is oblate, that is, flattened along the $`z`$ direction.

In terms of the new variables

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi =\mathrm{cos}v(1\xi 1)\hfill \\ \zeta =\mathrm{sinh}\mu ,(0\zeta <\mathrm{})\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
we can write

$$\begin{array}{c}x=\rho \mathrm{cos}\phi \hfill \\ y=\rho \mathrm{sin}\phi \hfill \\ z=a\xi \zeta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
with

$$\rho =a\left[(1\xi ^2)(1+\zeta ^2)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(21)
The surface of the spheroid is now given by $`\zeta =\zeta _0`$. Laplace’s equation for the potential is separable in these coordinates,Arfken  and its solution with rotational symmetry about the $`z`$ axis, which is acceptable in the present physical circumstances, is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(\xi ,\zeta )=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )\left[A_{\mathrm{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(i\zeta )+B_{\mathrm{}}Q_{\mathrm{}}(i\zeta )\right](\zeta <\zeta _0)$$
(22a)
inside the spheroid, and
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(\xi ,\zeta )=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )\left[C_{\mathrm{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(i\zeta )+D_{\mathrm{}}Q_{\mathrm{}}(i\zeta )\right](\zeta >\zeta _0)$$
(22b)
outside the spheroid, where $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the $`\mathrm{}`$th Legendre polynomial and $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Legendre function of the second kind of order $`\mathrm{}`$. The absence of $`Q_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )`$ is necessary to guarantee the regularity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the $`z`$ axis ($`\xi =1`$).

An inspection of Eq. (17) shows that asymptotically $`\zeta `$ plays the role of a radial coordinate. More precisely, for large $`\mu `$, we have $`\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\zeta r/a`$ with $`r,\theta `$ spherical coordinates. This observation strongly suggests that the terms with $`\mathrm{}=1`$ alone will suffice to satisfy the boundary conditions, and accordingly we take

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(\xi ,\zeta )=P_1(\xi )\left[AP_1(i\zeta )+BQ_1(i\zeta )\right](\zeta <\zeta _0)$$
(23a)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(\xi ,\zeta )=P_1(\xi )\left[CP_1(i\zeta )+DQ_1(i\zeta )\right],(\zeta >\zeta _0)$$
(23b)
where

$$P_1(\xi )=\xi \text{and}Q_1(i\zeta )=\zeta \mathrm{cot}^1\zeta 1.$$
(24)
It is not difficult to show that for large $`\zeta `$

$$Q_1(i\zeta )\frac{1}{3\zeta ^2}.$$
(25)
Therefore, the correct asymptotic behavior of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ requires that $`C=0`$. As in the spherical coordinates case, it is necessary to take $`B=0`$ to avoid unphysical singularities. Indeed, the $`\xi `$-component of the electric field associated with the term $`P_1(\xi )Q_1(i\zeta )`$ is proportional to $`h_\xi ^1[P_1(\xi )Q_1(i\zeta )]/\xi =a^1(1\xi ^2)^{1/2}(\xi ^2+\zeta ^2)^{1/2}(\zeta \mathrm{cot}^1\zeta 1)`$, which is infinite at $`\xi =\zeta =0`$, that is, at the circumference $`\rho =a`$ on the $`xy`$-plane. Thus, we try to satisfy the boundary conditions with (the imaginary unit has been absorbed into the coefficient $`A`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(\xi ,\zeta )=A\xi \zeta ,(\zeta <\zeta _0)$$
(26a)
and
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(\xi ,\zeta )=D\xi (\zeta \mathrm{cot}^1\zeta 1).(\zeta >\zeta _0)$$
(26b)
The continuity of the potential at the surface of the spheroid yields

$$A\zeta _0=D(\zeta _0\mathrm{cot}^1\zeta _01).$$
(27)
The continuity of the normal component of $`𝐃`$ on the surface of the spheroid demands that

$$ϵ_0\frac{1}{h_\zeta }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}{\zeta }|_{\zeta _0}+𝐏\widehat{𝐞}_\zeta |_{\zeta _0}=ϵ\frac{1}{h_\zeta }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}}{\zeta }|_{\zeta _0},$$
(28)
with

$$h_\zeta =a\left(\frac{\xi ^2+\zeta ^2}{1+\zeta ^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(29)
Because the unit outward normal vector to the surface of the spheroid is

$$\widehat{𝐞}_\zeta =\frac{𝐫/\zeta }{|𝐫/\zeta |}=\frac{1}{h_\zeta }\frac{𝐫}{\zeta },$$
(30)
it follows that

$$𝐏\widehat{𝐞}_\zeta =P_0\widehat{𝐤}\widehat{𝐞}_\zeta =P_0\frac{1}{h_\zeta }\widehat{𝐤}\frac{𝐫}{\zeta }=P_0\frac{a\xi }{h_\zeta }.$$
(31)
The substitution of Eqs. (26) and (31) into Eq. (28) leads to

$$ϵ_0A+P_0a=ϵD\left(\mathrm{cot}^1\zeta _0\frac{\zeta _0}{1+\zeta _0^2}\right).$$
(32)
The solution for $`A`$ and $`D`$ is

$$A=\frac{(\mathrm{cot}^1\zeta _01/\zeta _0)aP_0}{(ϵ_0ϵ)\mathrm{cot}^1\zeta _0+\frac{ϵ\zeta _0}{1+\zeta _0^2}\frac{ϵ_0}{\zeta _0}},$$
(33)
$$D=\frac{aP_0}{(ϵ_0ϵ)\mathrm{cot}^1\zeta _0+\frac{ϵ\zeta _0}{1+\zeta _0^2}\frac{ϵ_0}{\zeta _0}}.$$
(34)
The volume of the spheroid is

$$V=\frac{4}{3}\pi (a\mathrm{cosh}\mu _0)^2a\mathrm{sinh}\mu _0=\frac{4}{3}\pi a^3(1+\zeta _0^2)\zeta _0,$$
(35)
so that the dipole moment of the spheroid is

$$p_0=\frac{4}{3}\pi a^3(1+\zeta _0^2)\zeta _0P_0.$$
(36)
For large $`\zeta `$, we have $`\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\zeta r/a`$, so that, with the use of Eqs. (25) and (36), we find that the asymptotic behavior of the potential is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\text{ob})}(\xi ,\zeta )\frac{ϵ_0}{(ϵϵ_0)\zeta _0(1+\zeta _0^2)\mathrm{cot}^1\zeta _0+ϵ_0+(ϵ_0ϵ)\zeta _0^2}\frac{p_0}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}.$$
(37)
This result is quite unexpected! Our intuition leads us to believe that seen from far away, it is impossible to tell a uniformly polarized sphere from a uniformly polarized ellipsoid. The shape independence of the asymptotic potential prevails only for the vacuum ($`ϵ=ϵ_0`$). For a dielectric, the asymptotic potential depends on the shape of the dipole distribution near the origin.

### IV.2 The Prolate Case

The analysis of the prolate case runs along similar lines. The prolate spheroidal coordinates are defined byArfken

$$\begin{array}{c}x=a\mathrm{sinh}\mu \mathrm{sin}v\mathrm{cos}\phi \hfill \\ y=a\mathrm{sinh}\mu \mathrm{sin}v\mathrm{sin}\phi \hfill \\ z=a\mathrm{cosh}\mu \mathrm{cos}v.\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
The surface of the spheroid is defined by $`\mu =\mu _0`$, while its interior is determined by $`\mu <\mu _0`$. The surface of the spheroid is again given in cartesian coordinates by Eq. (18) with $`X=a\mathrm{sinh}\mu _0`$ and $`Z=a\mathrm{cosh}\mu _0`$, so that $`Z>X`$ and the spheroid is elongated in the $`z`$ direction.

In terms of the new variables

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi =\mathrm{cos}v(1\xi 1)\hfill \\ \eta =\mathrm{cosh}\mu ,(1\eta \mathrm{})\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
we can write

$$\begin{array}{c}x=\rho \mathrm{cos}\phi \hfill \\ y=\rho \mathrm{sin}\phi \hfill \\ z=a\xi \eta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
with

$$\rho =a\left[(1\xi ^2)(\eta ^21)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(41)
The surface of the spheroid is now given by $`\eta =\eta _0`$, and the solution to Laplace’s equation that suits our problem is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(\xi ,\eta )=FP_1(\xi )P_1(\eta ),(\eta <\eta _0)$$
(42)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(\xi ,\eta )=GP_1(\xi )Q_1(\eta ).(\eta >\eta _0).$$
(43)
Here

$$Q_1(\eta )=\frac{\eta }{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta +1}{\eta 1}1,$$
(44)
whose asymptotic behavior for large $`\eta `$ is

$$Q_1(\eta )\frac{1}{3\eta ^2}.$$
(45)
The application of the boundary conditions at the surface of the uniformly polarized prolate spheroid yields

$$F=\frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta _0+1}{\eta _01}\frac{1}{\eta _0}\right)aP_0}{\frac{ϵ_0ϵ}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta _0+1}{\eta _01}+\frac{ϵ\eta _0}{\eta _0^21}\frac{ϵ_0}{\eta _0}}$$
(46)
$$G=\frac{aP_0}{\frac{ϵ_0ϵ}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta _0+1}{\eta _01}+\frac{ϵ\eta _0}{\eta _0^21}\frac{ϵ_0}{\eta _0}}.$$
(47)
The volume of the prolate spheroid is

$$V=\frac{4}{3}\pi (a\mathrm{sinh}\mu _0)^2a\mathrm{cosh}\mu _0=\frac{4}{3}\pi a^3(\eta _0^21)\eta _0,$$
(48)
and its dipole moment is

$$p_0=\frac{4}{3}\pi a^3(\eta _0^21)\eta _0P_0.$$
(49)
As for the oblate case, we have for large $`\eta `$, $`\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\eta r/a`$, so that the asymptotic behavior of the potential is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\text{pr})}(\xi ,\zeta )\frac{ϵ_0}{\frac{ϵ_0ϵ}{2}\eta _0(\eta _0^21)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta _0+1}{\eta _01}+ϵ_0+(ϵϵ_0)\eta _0^2}\frac{p_0}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}.$$
(50)
Once again the asymptotic potential exhibits a surprising shape dependence that is absent only in the case of the vacuum. For a dielectric the asymptotic potential allows us to tell the difference between a uniform dipole density distributed within a sphere, an oblate spheroid, or a prolate spheroid. If a hole in the dielectric is filled with a uniform charge density, no such shape dependence is observed. The total induced charge depends only on the internal free charge and on the dielectric constant.

Note also the striking result that the electric field is uniform inside the spheroid because the potential is of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}=Az`$ in both cases, as Eqs. (26a) and (42) show.

## V Limiting Cases and Conclusion

Let us define the screening factor $`\alpha `$ as the coefficient that multiplies the vacuum asymptotic dipole field to give the asymptotic dipole field in the presence of the dielectric medium. From Eq. (50) it follows immediately that

$$\alpha =ϵ_0\left[\frac{ϵ_0ϵ}{2}\eta _0(\eta _0^21)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta _0+1}{\eta _01}+ϵ_0+(ϵϵ_0)\eta _0^2\right]^1.$$
(51)
The spherical limit is reached by letting $`\eta _0\mathrm{cosh}\mu _0\mathrm{}`$ and $`a0`$ in such a way that $`a\mathrm{cosh}\mu _0=R`$ remains fixed. Then we obtain $`X=Z=R`$ in Eq. (18) and the spheroid degenerates into a sphere. If we take into account that for large $`\eta _0`$

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta _0+1}{\eta _01}=\frac{2}{\eta _0}+\frac{2}{3\eta _0^3}+\mathrm{},$$
(52)
it is easy to show that

$$\underset{\eta _0\mathrm{}}{lim}\alpha =\frac{3ϵ_0}{2ϵ+ϵ_0}.$$
(53)
Thus our previous result for the uniformly polarized sphere is recovered.

Let us now examine the line dipole limit, reached by letting $`\eta _01`$ or, equivalently, $`\mu _00`$. In this limit we have $`X=0`$ and $`Z=a`$, so that the ellipsoid (18) reduces to a line segment (a rod) along the $`z`$-axis. If we recall that $`lim_{x0}x\mathrm{ln}x=0`$, we can readily show that

$$\underset{\eta _01}{lim}\alpha =\frac{ϵ_0}{ϵ},$$
(54)
and the standard answer (1) is regained.

For the oblate spheroid we can also consider two limiting cases with the help of Eq. (37). If we let $`\zeta _0\mathrm{}`$ and $`a0`$ with $`a\zeta _0=R`$, the spherical limit is reached and $`\alpha 3ϵ_0/(2ϵ+ϵ_0)`$, as it should. If $`\zeta _00`$, the spheroid becomes a “pancake” describing a dipole layer, and $`\alpha 1`$. This result appears to be of some interest, inasmuch as the presence of the dielectric does not change the vacuum field.

We believe that further discussion of the physical grounds for the discrepancies is necessary. The screening factor $`\alpha `$ is a measure of the total dipole moment in the presence of the dieletric relative to the vacuum dipole moment $`p_0`$. Thus, the dipole moment of the charges induced on the surface of the hole depends not only on the free dipole moment $`p_0`$ and the dielectric constant, but also on the shape of the hole. That the shape dependence persists in the infinitely small hole limit seems to be related to the singularity of the dipole field, which is stronger than that of the monopole field. For a shrinking finite charge distribution (monopole), Gauss’ law forbids this effect. The reader might want to generalize the dipole result for higher multipole moments.

It is suspected that such a shape dependence would manifest itself in the dynamical case, that is, in the radiation from a point dipole embedded in an infinite dielectric. Such a phenomenon might be of relevance in condensed matter physics. For instance, it might give rise to classical effects in the theory of quantum dots.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil. Special thanks are due to David Griffiths, whose corrections and suggestions have contributed to a significant improvement of the paper.