text:
# Production and Polarization Effects in Some Tau-Lepton Decays

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The theoretical results for lepton flavour violating (LFV) branching ratios (BR) are usually given in terms of the decay rates, independently of the production mechanism of the tau leptons. In this paper the total cross sections involving decaying resonances are studied. The cross sections are evaluated exactly and assuming the independence of decay processes of the production mechanism. The deviations of approximative cross section from the exact cross section are analyzed. The aim of this work is to show that the exact calculation should be applied to LFV processes, too.

The independence of resonance decay rates of the production mechanism has been conjectured in the early sixties , and recently it has been refined for a scalar resonance

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _A}{dM^2d^3P}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _R(M)}{d^3P}}{\displaystyle \frac{M\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RA}(M)}{\pi 𝒟_R(M)}}.`$ (1)
$`d\sigma _A`$ is the cross section of the process $`1+2X+(RA)`$ (1 and 2 are incoming particles, $`R`$ is a resonance, $`A`$ are decay products of $`R`$, and $`X`$ are all particles not included in the $`R`$ decay). $`d\sigma _R(M)`$ is the cross section of the process $`1+2X+R`$ (where $`R`$ is treated as a free particle of an unphysical mass $`M`$). $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RA}(M)`$ is the decay rate of $`R`$ ($`R`$ again treated as a free particle of unphysical mass $`M`$). $`𝒟_R(M)`$ is the usual denominator of the resonance-$`R`$ propagator,

$$𝒟_R(M)=(M_0^2M^2)^2+M_0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2(M)$$
(2)
($`M_0`$ is the physical mass of the resonance $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ is its total decay rate). $`P`$ is the four-momentum of the resonance $`R`$ and $`M^2=P^2`$. Equation (1) is valid for one decaying resonance in the amplitude. It suggests that the process $`1+2X+(RA)`$ can be viewed as a sequence of two independent processes, $`1+2X+R`$ and $`RA`$. Therefore, the decay rate of the resonance $`R`$ is independent of the production mechanism. The approximate integral form of Eq. (1), valid for narrow resonances, which follows from the approximate relation

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}M𝒟_R(M)^2𝑑M^2=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R},$$
(3)
is given by

$$\sigma _A=\sigma _R\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RA}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}.$$
(4)
Equation (1) can be generalized for several decaying resonances in the amplitude, and this generalization is especially simple for narrow resonances.

For a scalar resonance, the product form for the total cross section ($`\sigma `$PF) (1) is a consequence of the product form of the corresponding matrix element,

$$_A=_Ri𝒟_R^1_{RA},$$
(5)
with notation as in (1). $`_R`$ and $`_{RA}`$ are the same matrix elements that appear in the evaluation of the cross section $`1+2R+X`$ and $`RA`$.

In the case of spin-$`1/2`$ and vector resonances or resonances with more complicated spin-tensor structure, the product form for matrix elements (5) is not so simple and the product form for the differential cross section (1) is not generally valid. The product form for the differential cross section (1) for a vector resonance in the amplitude has been studied in . The conditions for the product formula for the differential cross section or total cross section for the processes with one and two spinor resonances are given here.

## 2 CONDITIONS FOR $`\sigma `$PF FOR ONE SPIN- $`1/2`$ RESONANCE

For a spin-$`1/2`$ resonance, the matrix elements $`_{RA}`$, $`_R`$ and $`_A`$ read

$`_{RA}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}_Au_R,`$
$`_R`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_RU_S,`$
$`_A`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_R^1\overline{U}_A𝒫_RU_S,`$ (6)
where $`u_R`$ is the wave function of the resonance, $`U_A`$ and $`U_S`$ (”spinor amplitudes”) are general spinor functions describing the decay products of the the resonance ($`A`$) and scattering process $`1+2X+R`$ (without the resonance wave function) and $`𝒫_R=\text{P/}+M_0`$ is the numerator of the propagator of the resonance. Spinor functions $`U_A`$ and $`U_S`$ contain all information on momenta and polarizations of the decay products $`\{A\}`$ and particles $`1,2,\{X\}`$ respectively. The corresponding decay rates and differential cross sections read

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RA}`$ $`=`$ $`(16M\pi ^2)^1Tr[𝒫_RT],`$ (7)
$`E{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _R}{d^3P}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4F}}Tr[𝒫_RS],`$ (8)
$`E{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _A}{d^3PdM^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{32F}}Tr[S𝒫_RT𝒫_R],`$ (9)
where $`E=(M^2+𝐏^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the energy of the resonance, $`F=E_1E_2|𝐯_1𝐯_2|`$, and

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _A\}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\text{LIPS}_AU_A\times \overline{U}_A},`$ (10)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\lambda _X\}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi _XU_S\times \overline{U}_S},`$ (11)
with $`\{\lambda _A\}`$, $`\{\lambda _X\}`$ and $`d\text{LIPS}_A`$ and $`d\varphi _X`$ representing the polarizations of $`\{A\}`$ and $`\{X\}`$ particles, Lorentz invariant phase space of particles $`\{A\}`$ and phase space of $`\{X\}`$ particles, respectively.

The most general form of $`T`$ is

$$T=T_1+\text{T/}_2+T_3^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }+\text{T/}\gamma _5+T_5\gamma _5.$$
(12)
The product form for the differential cross section is satisfied if the product of the traces from Eqs. (7) and (8) is equal to the trace from Eq. (9). The sufficient condition for that equality to be satisfied is

$$𝒫_RT𝒫_R=𝒫_R\frac{1}{2}Tr[T𝒫_R],$$
(13)
with the most general solution for $`T`$,

$$T=T_1+\text{T/}_2+T_4\overline{\text{P/}}+T_5\gamma _5,$$
(14)
($`\overline{P}=P/M_0`$). Although the condition (13) is not the only one that realizes the product form for the differential cross section (13) for one resonance in the scattering process $`1+2R+X`$, it is the only one that remains for more than one decaying resonance in the scattering process.

If the summation over all polarizations of $`\{A\}`$ particles and integration over complete $`d\text{LIPS}_A`$ phase space is performed, $`T`$ depends only on the momentum of the resonance $`P`$, and its most general form,

$$T=T_1+T_2\overline{\text{P/}}+T_4\overline{\text{P/}}+T_5\gamma _5$$
(15)
(form factors $`T_i`$ depend only on $`P^2`$) satisfies the product form condition (13). Therefore, if an experiment is performed with a $`4\pi `$ detector, and polarizations are not measured, the $`\sigma `$PF is satisfied for processes with one decaying spin-$`1/2`$ resonance. The result can be generalized for processes with any number of decaying spin-$`1/2`$ resonances.

In the following, three possible situations which deviate from the situation described by Eq. (15), will be discussed,
1. polarization of the decay products $`\{A\}`$ of the resonance,
2. a process with two or more spin-$`1/2`$ resonances,
3. partial integration over phase space for processes with two spin-$`1/2`$ resonances.

## 3 $`\sigma `$PF AND POLARIZATION

The description of the polarization of massless spin-$`1/2`$ particles, massive spin-$`1/2`$ and vector particles and massless vector particles is different. Helicity of the massless spin-$`1/2`$ particles is completely determined by the $`V\pm A`$ vertices and no additional four-vector is needed for the description of the particle polarization. For massive spin-$`1/2`$ and vector particles one has to introduce additional four-vector along with the particle four-momentum for a complete description of the particle state. For instance, for a massive spin-$`1/2`$ particle of mass $`m`$ and four-momentum $`p`$, the four vectors describing the particle state are,

$$p=(E,p\widehat{𝐩}),s=(p,E\widehat{𝐩})/m.$$
(16)
($`\widehat{𝐩}`$ is the unit vector in the direction of $`𝐩`$). The direction of the spacial part of the four-vectors $`p`$ and $`s`$ are the same. That follows from the definition of the helicity quantization axis and the fact that the little group of the massive particle is attached to its rest frame. For massless vector particles, the additional four-vector that is necessary for the description of a helicity of the state, $`\eta `$, is independent of the four-momentum of the particle, and it represents the laboratory frame in which the quantization of the massless-vector-particle spin is performed. In the laboratory frame it is a pure time-like four-vector.

If among the polarized particles of the decay products of the resonance $`R`$ only spin-$`1/2`$ and massive vector particles appear, the complete integration over $`d\text{LIPS}_A`$ gives $`T`$ again the structure (15) that assures $`\sigma `$PF. The presence of polarized massless vector particles among the decay products of the resonance $`R`$ leads to additional terms of the $`T`$ even after the complete integration over $`d\text{LIPS}_A`$,

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`T_1+T_{2A}\overline{\text{P/}}+T_{2B}\eta \text{/}+T_3\sigma _{\mu \nu }\eta ^\mu \overline{P}^\nu `$ (17)
$`+`$ $`T_{4A}\overline{\text{P/}}+T_{4B}\eta \text{/}\gamma _5+T_5\gamma _5,`$
which cannot be removed by the most general gauge transformation of polarization vectors of the type, $`\epsilon (p,\lambda _i)\epsilon (p,\lambda _i)+\alpha _ip`$, where $`p`$ is the four-momentum of the massless vector particle and $`\alpha _i`$ are constants. The fourth and sixth term in Eq. (17) violate the product form condition (13).

## 4 $`\sigma `$PF FOR TWO RESONANCE PROCESSES

The expected $`\sigma `$PF equation for a two narrow-resonance process is

$`\sigma _{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{R_1R_2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_1A}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_2B}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_2}}}\sigma _{AB}^{PF}`$ (18)
($`\sigma _{AB}\sigma _{1+2(R_1A)(R_2B)}`$, $`\sigma _{R_1R_2}\sigma _{1+2R_1R_2}`$). The relevant matrix elements for studying $`\sigma `$PF are

$`_A`$ $``$ $`_{R_1A}=\overline{U}^Au^{R_1},`$ (19)
$`_B`$ $``$ $`_{R_2B}=\overline{u}^{R_2}U^B,`$ (20)
$`_{R_1R_2}`$ $``$ $`_{1+2R_1R_2}=\overline{u}^{R_1}su^{R_2},`$ (21)
$`_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}^A𝒫^{R_1}s𝒫^{R_2}U^B𝒟_{R_1}^1𝒟_{R_2}^1`$ (22)
($`u^{R_1}`$ and $`u^{R_2}`$ are the wave functions of the resonances, $`U^A`$ and $`U^B`$ describe the resonance products, $`𝒫^{R_1}`$ and $`𝒫^{R_2}`$ are the numerators of the propagators of the resonances, $`𝒟_{R_1}`$ and $`𝒟_{R_2}`$ are the corresponding denominators of the propagators, and $`s`$ is $`1+2R_1R_2`$ amplitude without the resonance wave functions). Squaring the amplitude, using the usual trick for the subdivision of the phase space of outgoing particles (),

$`dLIPS_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}dM_{R_1}^2dM_{R_2}^2dLIPS_{R_1R_2}`$ (23)
$`dLIPS_AdLIPS_B,`$
integrating out the delta functions, and integrating over the squares of unphysical resonance masses, one obtains the approximative expression (valid for narrow resonances) for the total cross section (LHS of Eq. (18))

$`\sigma _{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{P\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}F^1}{2^8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_2}M_{R_1}^0M_{R_2}^0}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_1}𝑑L_A𝑑L_B}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}S_{ij}^{IJ}Tr[𝒫^{R_1}t^A𝒫^{R_1}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{iI}𝒫^{R_2}t^B𝒫^{R_2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{jJ}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}F^1}{2^6\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_1}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}S_{ij}^{IJ}Tr[𝒫^{R_1}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_A𝒫^{R_1}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{iI}𝒫^{R_2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^B𝒫^{R_2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{jJ}]`$
($`\lambda =(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`P=|𝐏_{R_1}|=|𝐏_{R_2}|`$, $`M_{R_1}^0`$ and $`M_{R_2}^0`$ are physical masses of the resonances; $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_1}`$ is differential solid angle of $`\widehat{𝐏}_{R_1}`$, $`dL_A`$ and $`dL_B`$ are remnants of $`d\text{LIPS}_{A,B}`$ phase spaces after integration over delta functions; $`𝒫^{R_a}=\text{P/}_{R_a}\pm M_{R_a}`$, $`a=1,2`$, are numerators of $`R_a`$ propagators – plus sign is for a particle resonance and minus sign for an antiparticle resonance;

$`t^A`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _0U_A^{}\times U_A,`$
$`t^B`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _0U_B^{}\times U_B,`$
are absolute squares of the spinor amplitude decay products of resonances $`R_{1,2}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}S_{ij}^{IJ}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{iI}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{jJ}`$ $``$ $`S=\gamma _0s^{}\gamma _0\times s,`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i`$ are Dirac algebra matrices and $`I`$ is a set of Lorentz indices assigned to a particular $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i`$ matrix; $`_{ij}S_{ij}^{IJ}`$ are tensor functions which are part of the absolute square of the spinor amplitude $`s`$; the quantities

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{A,B}=𝑑L_{A,B}t^{A,B}$$
(27)
are ”spinor decay rates” of resonances $`R_{1,2}`$ because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R_{1,2}A,B}=\frac{1}{2M_{R_{1,2}}}Tr[𝒫^{R_1,R_2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{A,B}]`$ ). The expression for the RHS of Eq. (18) is obtained from (25) by replacement

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}S_{ij}^{IJ}Tr[𝒫^{R_1}t^A𝒫^{R_1}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{iI}𝒫^{R_2}t^B𝒫^{R_2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{jJ}]`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}S_{ij}^{IJ}Tr[𝒫^{R_1}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{iI}𝒫^{R_2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{jJ}]`$
$`\times Tr[t^A𝒫^{R_1}]Tr[t^B𝒫^{R_2}].`$
The $`\sigma `$PF equation leads to the equality of LHS and RHS of Eq. (28). It can be shown that the only way to satisfy that equality is that the following two conditions are satisfied,

$`(𝒫^{R_1}T^A𝒫^{R_1})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫^{R_1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr(T^A𝒫^{R_1}),`$
$`(𝒫^{R_2}T^B𝒫^{R_2})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫^{R_2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr(T^B𝒫^{R_2})`$ (29)
($`T^{A,B}=t^{A,B}`$ or $`T^{A,B}=𝑑L_{A,B}t^{A,B}`$). Eqs. (4) are identical in form to Eq. (13), and their most general solutions have the same form as (14),

$`T^A`$ $`=`$ $`T_1^A+\text{T/}_2^A+T_4^A\text{P/}_4^A\gamma _5+T_5^A\gamma _5,`$
$`T^B`$ $`=`$ $`T_1^B+\text{T/}_2^B+T_4^B\text{P/}_4^B\gamma _5+T_5^B\gamma _5.`$ (30)
The generalization of $`\sigma `$PF conditions for more than two spin-$`1/2`$ resonances is obvious.

## 5 ANALYSIS OF $`\sigma `$PF for $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}A)(\tau ^+B)`$ PROCESSES

From the above analysis follows that to prove the some process containing only spin-$`1/2`$ resonances satisfies $`\sigma `$PF one has to show that all absolute squares of the spinor amplitudes of spin-$`1/2`$ resonances included in the process, or any phase space integral (partial or complete) of these quantities must satisfy the condition (13). That rule will be used to study several $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}A)(\tau ^{}B)`$ ptocesses with respect to the condition (13). Three processes are chosen for the analysis, $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu _\tau )(\tau ^+\pi ^+\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$, $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}l^{}\overline{\nu }_l\nu _\tau )(\tau ^+l^+\nu _l\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ and $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\nu _\tau )(\tau ^+l^+\gamma )`$. First two are Standard Model processes, while the third belongs to the physics beyond the Standard Model. The first one contains one observable scalar per decaying resonance, the second contains one observable lepton per resonance, and the third comprises one resonance as in the first case while the other resonance decays into observable lepton and photon. The parts of the phase space of the unobservable particles can be integrated. In the following analysis simple model of LFV – Standard model with additional heavy neutrinos ) is used.

The spinor decay rates involved in the processes read (complete phase space integration and summation over all polarizations is assumed):

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\tau \pi \nu _\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{G}_F^2\overline{f}_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{ud}|^2}{2^3\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\tau ^2}}\right)\overline{\text{P/}}_\tau P_L,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\tau l^{}\overline{\nu }_l\nu _\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{G}_F^2}{3\times 2^6\pi ^3}}\overline{\text{P/}}_\tau P_L,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\tau l^{}\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _W^3s_W^2}{2^8\pi ^2\overline{M}_W^4}}(1\overline{m}_l^2)^3`$ (31)
$`\overline{\text{P/}}_\tau (P_R+\overline{m}_l^2P_L)F_{LFV}^2.`$
Barred quantities are dimensionless. They are obtained from the corresponding dimensionfull quantities multiplying them by a power of the tau mass. $`G_F`$ is Fermi constant, $`\alpha _W=g^2/(4\pi )`$; $`F_{LFV}=(_iB_{\tau i}^{}B_{li}`$ $`G(\lambda _i))^2`$ is a factor which contains information on the magnitude of LFV – see Refs. . Obviously, all spinor decay rates satisfy the $`\sigma `$PF condition (13). Notice the similarity in the structure of the spin dependent parts of all three $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-s.

The approximative expressions (the numerator of the $`W`$-boson propagator s replaced by $`M_W^2`$) for the absolute squares of spinor amplitudes for these three processes read

$`t_{\tau \nu _\tau \pi }`$ $``$ $`m_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{f}_\pi ^2}{\overline{M}_W^4}}V_{ud}^2(\overline{\text{p/}}_\pi \overline{m}_\pi ^2\overline{\text{P/}}_\tau )`$
$`t_{\tau \nu _\tau \nu _ll}`$ $``$ $`m_\tau ^1g^4\overline{M}_W^4(1\overline{s}_{\tau l}\overline{s}_{\nu _ll})\overline{\text{p/}}_{\nu _l}P_L`$
$`t_{\tau l\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`m_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{s_W^2(1\overline{m}_l^2}{2^9\pi ^4\overline{M}_W^4}}F_{LFV}^2`$ (32)
$`\overline{\text{p/}}_\gamma (P_L+\overline{m}_l^2P_R)`$
($`\overline{s}_{\tau l}=(\overline{p}_\tau \overline{p}_l)^2`$, $`\overline{s}_{\nu _ll}=(\overline{p}_\nu +\overline{p}_l)^2`$), The structures of the spin dependent parts of all three $`t`$-s are similar. Further, none of three absolute squares of spinor amplitudes satisfies the $`\sigma `$PF condition (13). Therefore, a deviation from the $`\sigma `$PF is expected if the complete integration over phase space is not peformed. The phase space measures of all three processes contain the differentials of solid angles of the two observable particles. For the process $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}l^{}\overline{\nu }_l\nu _\tau )(\tau ^+l^+\nu _l\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$, we performed the following integrations over phase space. We defined the difference of the differentials of the RHS and LHS of Eq. (18)

$$d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =d\sigma _{A,B}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^2}d\sigma _{R_1R_2}d\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ad\mathrm{\Gamma }_B.$$
(33)
Next, the unit spheres of the solid angle variables of the measurable particles were subdivided into two hemispheres (left $`L`$ and right $`R`$ with respect to the direction of the incoming electron). So four sectors with respect to the solid angle integrations of observable particles were obtained ($`LL`$, $`LR`$, $`RL`$ and $`RR`$). Further, we performed a complete integration over one of the four parts of the phase space and at the same time over the remaining part of the phase space. The results evaluated for center of mass energy $`\lambda ^{1/2}=\sqrt{20}m_\tau `$ are given in the following table.

Table 1.
The deviation of the cross section from the
product form
sector $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (GeV^2)`$    $`LL`$ $`7.67\times 10^{10}`$  $`LR`$ $`7.44\times 10^{10}`$  $`RL`$ $`7.82\times 10^{10}`$  $`RR`$ $`7.47\times 10^{10}`$  $`LL+LR+RL+RR`$ $`0.11\times 10^{10}`$

The integration is ten dimensional. The integration was performed by a simple, non-adaptive Monte-Carlo program. Therefore, the result obtained for the sum of the four contributions can be considered as consistent with zero (it tends to zero as one enlarges the number of integration points). On the other side, the cross sections for the total decay rate for $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}l^{}\overline{\nu }_l\nu _\tau )(\tau ^+l^+\nu _l\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$, evaluated using the product form formula (LHS of Eq. (18)), is

$$\sigma ^{PF}=4.42\times 10^9GeV.$$
(34)
The relative deviation of from the $`\sigma `$PF is of the order of $`20\%`$. The similarity of the structures of the spin dependent parts of all three $`t`$-s indicates that the relative deviation of from the $`\sigma `$PF for other two processes is of the same order of magnitude.

In the literature, LFV decay rates are usually theoretically evaluated assuming the $`\sigma `$PF. On the other side, measurements of LFV processes are performed by detectors which are not completely $`4\pi `$ detectors. Therefore, in principle, one should include the dependence of the LFV decay rates on the production mechanism when presenting the theoretical results.

## 6 CONCLUSION

The conditions for the product form of a decay rate ($`\sigma `$PF) of an amplitude containing one or more spin-$`1/2`$ resonances have been found. The analysis of the $`\sigma `$PF has been performed for one and two resonances, for unpolarized particles and complete integration over phase space of outgoing particles, for polarized particles and complete integration over phase space of outgoing particles, and for unpolarized particles and partial integration over phase space. It has been found that the $`\sigma `$PF is not satisfied if decay products of the resonance contain polarized massless spin-$`1`$ particle(s) even for complete integration over phase space or if partial integration over phase space is performed, regardless of the polarization of the particles. The formalism has been applied to three $`e^{}e^+(\tau ^{}A)(\tau ^+B)`$ processes, two Standard Model processes and one lepton flavour violating (LFV) process. These three examples show explicitely that complete integration over phase space and summation over all polarizations leads to the $`\sigma `$PF, but if partial integration over phase space is performed, large deviations from the $`\sigma `$PF are obtained. A comment on a possible improvement of the theoretical results for LFV decay rates, including their dependence on the production mechanism, is given.

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to the Workshop organizers and particularly to A. Seiden for the opportunity to attend the Workshop and to present this talk. Author is indebted to S. Eidelman for suggesting the study the problem presented here, and also thanks Z. Was, S. Eidelman, A. Czarnecki, K. Inami, A. Stahl and M. Hayashii for very instructive discussions.

Note After the author sent this paper to arXiv.org, Y. Okada draw his attention to the paper , in which spin correlations in the leptonic LFV tau-lepton decays were discussed in detail.


format: text

text:
# Correlated tunneling in intramolecular carbon nanotube quantum dots

Current address:\] Condensed Matter Physics 114-36, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125

## Abstract

We investigate correlated electronic transport in single-walled carbon nanotubes with two intramolecular tunneling barriers. We suggest that below a characteristic temperature the long range nature of the Coulomb interaction becomes crucial to determine the temperature dependence of the maximum $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the conductance peak. Correlated sequential tunneling dominates transport yielding the power-law $`G_{\mathrm{max}}T^{\alpha _{\mathrm{end}\mathrm{end}}1}`$, typical for tunneling between the ends of two Luttinger liquids. Our predictions are in agreement with recent measurements.

Electronic correlations have been predicted to dominate the characteristic features in single-walled metallic carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) Egger97 ; Kane97 , which has recently been observed in experiments Yao99 ; Bockrath99 ; Postma00 . The one-dimensional nature of the electronic conduction bands reveals itself in typical Luttinger liquid Voit95 , rather than Fermi liquid behavior. The manipulation of individual nanotubes with an atomic force microscope permits the creation of intra-tube buckles acting as tunneling barriers Postma00 . Recently, SWNTs with two intramolecular buckles have been reported to behave as room-temperature single-electron transistors Postma01 . At low temperatures, the thermal electronic energies are smaller than the level separation between the discrete energy states of the island and tunneling occurs via these discrete levels. Resonant tunneling in Luttinger liquids has been investigated theoretically by many authors Kane92 ; Furusaki93 ; Sassetti95 ; Furusaki98 ; Braggio00 . The one-dimensional nature of the correlated electrons is responsible for the differences to the quantum Coulomb blockade theory for conventional, e.g., semiconducting quantum dots Beenakker91 . Varying the gate voltage results in a sequence of conductance peaks. In the (uncorrelated) sequential tunneling (UST) approximation the temperature dependence of the maxima of those peaks follows the power-law Furusaki98

$$G_{\mathrm{max}}T^{\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}1},$$
(1)
with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}`$ being the density of states exponent for tunneling into the end of a Luttinger liquid. However, recent experiments Postma01  suggest a different power-law,

$$G_{\mathrm{max}}T^{\alpha _{\mathrm{end}\mathrm{end}}1},$$
(2)
with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{end}\mathrm{end}}=2\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}`$.

In this Letter, we propose that a novel tunneling mechanism, correlated sequential tunneling (CST), gives rise to the power law (2). It originates from the finite range nature of the Coulomb interaction in SWNTs and replaces conventional uncorrelated sequential tunneling. It dominates resonant transport at low temperatures and strong interactions. CST leads to a renormalization of the intrinsic linewidth of the resonance, which is reflected in an increase of $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ with increasing temperature. In contrast, UST would predict the opposite behavior note . A good agreement with the experimental results Postma01  is found.

We describe an individual metallic SWNT with two buckles by the Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+H_\mathrm{B}+H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. Here, $`H_0`$ characterizes the one-dimensional homogeneous wire including the finite-range electronic interaction. Metallic carbon nanotubes possess two gap-less one-dimensional bands Egger97 ; Kane97  with Fermi velocity $`v_\mathrm{F}8\times 10^5`$ m/s Postma01 , which dominate the low-energy physics. In the bosonized representation, one finds Kane97

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=\rho ,\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{\mathrm{}v_\mathrm{F}}{2}\left[(_x\vartheta _a)^2+(_x\varphi _a)^2\right]}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x^{}_x\vartheta _\rho (x)V(xx^{})_x^{}\vartheta _\rho (x^{})},`$
containing three sectors of neutral excitations ($`a=\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$) propagating with $`v_\mathrm{F}`$, and one sector of charged excitations ($`a=\rho `$). The charge sector is characterized by the nonlinear dispersion relation $`\omega (k)=v_\mathrm{F}|k|[1+\widehat{V}(k)/\pi \mathrm{}v_\mathrm{F}]`$, where $`\widehat{V}(k)`$ is the Fourier transform of the screened Coulomb potential projected onto the $`x`$ direction $`V(x)`$ Cuniberti98 . In our approach, the nonlinear dispersion is crucial, since it modifies the low energy properties of the dynamics. The two tunneling barriers at $`x=\pm x_0/2`$ are modeled by a scattering potential $`U(x)=U_\mathrm{B}_{\kappa =}\delta (x+\kappa x_0/2)`$ leading to $`H_\mathrm{B}=𝑑xU(x)\rho (x)`$. Here, $`\rho (x)`$ is the total electron density and backscattering has to be included. Upon introducing $`N_a=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left[\vartheta _a\left(\frac{x_0}{2}\right)+\vartheta _a\left(\frac{x_0}{2}\right)\right]`$ and $`n_a=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left[\vartheta _a\left(\frac{x_0}{2}\right)\vartheta _a\left(\frac{x_0}{2}\right)\right]+\frac{4k_\mathrm{F}x_0}{\pi }\delta _{a,\rho }`$, $`H_\mathrm{B}`$ provides an eight-dimensional sinusoidal potential for the tunneling dynamics associated with the variables $`N_a`$ and $`n_a`$ Kane92 . Physically, $`eN_\rho /2`$ counts the unit charges transferred through the dot, while $`en_\rho `$ is the total charge accumulated on the dot. Likewise, $`N_\sigma `$ and $`n_\sigma `$ are related to the difference of spin fluctuations between both leads, and to the deviation from the mean value in the dot, respectively. The analogous interpretation for $`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma },n_{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho },n_{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }`$ holds. Finally, the gate voltage $`V_\mathrm{G}`$ and the bias voltage $`V`$ give rise to the term $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}=e[(V/2)N_\rho +\lambda V_\mathrm{G}n_\rho ]`$, where $`\lambda =C_\mathrm{G}/C_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, with $`C_\mathrm{G}`$ the gate capacitance and $`C_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ the total capacitance of gate and island.

The relevant observable is the asymptotic tunneling current $`I=lim_t\mathrm{}\frac{e}{2}\dot{N_\rho }(t)`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the expectation value determined via the reduced density matrix (RDM). The latter is obtained by tracing out exactly the Luttinger modes away from the barriers Weiss99 . The diagonal elements of the RDM are given by the conditional probabilities $`P(𝐍_\mathrm{f},t;𝐍_\mathrm{i},t_0)`$ of being in the final state $`𝐍_\mathrm{f}:=(\{N_{a,\mathrm{f}}\},\{n_{a,\mathrm{f}}\})`$ at time $`t`$, having started from the state $`𝐍_\mathrm{i}`$ at time $`t_0`$. Then, we find

$$I=\frac{e}{2}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{𝐍_\mathrm{f}}{}N_{\rho ,\mathrm{f}}\dot{P}(𝐍_\mathrm{f},t;𝐍_\mathrm{i},t_0):=e(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{f}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{b}),$$
(4)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{f}/\mathrm{b}}`$ being the total rates for forward/backward transfer of charge. In turn, after exploiting the detailed balance relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{b}(V)=e^{\beta eV}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{f}(V)`$, the linear conductance follows as $`G=lim_{V0}e^2\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{f}`$. Here, $`\beta =1/(k_\mathrm{B}T)`$ is the inverse thermal energy.

In general, the conditional probability $`P(𝐍_\mathrm{f},t;𝐍_\mathrm{i},t_0)`$ can be evaluated exactly in terms of a multiple real time path integral involving forward $`N_a(\tau )`$ ($`n_a(\tau ))`$ and backward $`N_a^{}(\tau ^{})`$ $`(n_a^{}(\tau ^{}))`$ paths Sassetti95 . The effect of the bath modes $`\vartheta _a(x\pm x_0/2,\tau )`$ enters via the influence functionals $`_+=\mathrm{exp}\{_a\mathrm{\Phi }_+[N_a,N_a^{}]\}`$, and $`_{}=\mathrm{exp}\{_a\mathrm{\Phi }_{}[n_a,n_a^{}]+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{C}[n_a,n_a^{}]\}`$, where the phases

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm [q,q^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑\tau ^{}[\dot{q}(\tau )\dot{q}^{}(\tau ^{})]`$ (5)
$`\times \{W_\pm ^a(\tau \tau ^{})\dot{q}(\tau ^{})W_\pm ^a(\tau \tau ^{})\dot{q}^{}(\tau ^{})\}`$
induce nonlocal-in-time correlations among different tunneling transitions. The correlation functions read Weiss99

$$W_\pm ^a(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{J_\pm ^a(\omega )}{\omega ^2}\left[(1\mathrm{cos}\omega t)\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\beta \omega }{2}+i\mathrm{sin}\omega t\right],$$
(6)
with the spectral densities Sassetti95  $`J_\pm ^a(\omega )=\omega e^{\omega /\omega _c}[1/2+(\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma /\mathrm{})_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (m))]/4`$ for the neutral sectors ($`a=\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$). Here, we have introduced a cut-off frequency $`\omega _c`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+(m)=\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma (2m1)/\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma 2m/\mathrm{}`$. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma =\pi \mathrm{}v_\mathrm{F}/x_0`$ is related to the energy quantization of the neutral plasmon modes in the dot. In Postma01 , $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma >k_\mathrm{B}T`$ also at room temperature. For the charged sector the spectral density reads $`J_\pm ^\rho (\omega )=K^\pm (\omega _ni\omega +0^+)/\pi \mathrm{}`$, where

$$[K^\pm (\omega _n)]^1=\frac{4v_\mathrm{F}}{\mathrm{}\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\frac{1\pm \mathrm{cos}(kx_0)}{\omega _n^2+\omega ^2(k)},$$
(7)
and $`\omega _n`$ are the Matsubara frequencies. For an arbitrary finite range potential the spectral densities $`J_\pm ^\rho (\omega )`$ cannot be evaluated analytically. In general, as in the zero-range case, $`V_{\mathrm{zr}}(x)=V_0\delta (x)`$, the leads contribute an Ohmic spectrum at low frequency: $`lim_{\omega 0}J_+^\rho (\omega )+J_{}^\rho (\omega ):=J_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\rho (\omega )=\omega /g_\rho `$, where $`g_\rho ^2=1+\widehat{V}(k=0)/\pi \mathrm{}v_\mathrm{F}`$. Theoretical estimates as well as experiments show that typical values for $`g_\rho `$ range between 0.18 and 0.26 in SWNTs Egger97 ; Kane97 ; Yao99 ; Bockrath99 , being well below $`g_\rho =1`$ for noninteracting electrons.

As a consequence of the finite range interaction, a new energy scale arises which introduces two qualitatively new features: (i) The $`\delta `$-shaped resonances for the zero-range limit turn into resonances of finite height and with an intrinsic line-width $`1/g_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, cf. Fig. 1. (ii) The new parameter $`g_\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ is defined from the low energy relation

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}J_+^\rho (\omega )J_{}^\rho (\omega ):=J_\mathrm{\Delta }^\rho (\omega )=\omega /g_\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(8)
For ease of calculation, we assume a potential $`V(x)=V_0a/2\mathrm{exp}(a|x|)`$ Cuniberti98 , with $`a`$ being the inverse screening length ($`a\mathrm{}`$ yields the zero-range interaction limit $`V_0\delta (x)`$ and implies $`g_\mathrm{\Delta }^10`$). The numerical results for this potential are shown in Fig. 1. Note however that, as shown below, our main conclusions are independent of the precise shape of the potential. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{C}`$ provides a quadratic local-in-time contribution proportional to the addition energies $`E_\sigma =\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma /2`$ for the neutral sectors, and $`E_\rho =K^{}(\omega _n=0)`$ for the charge plasmons.

Of foremost importance is how to evaluate the forward rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{f}`$. In the large barrier limit, the dynamics is ruled by well separated tunneling events between the adjacent minima of the periodic potential in $`H_\mathrm{B}`$. Each tunneling event induces the change $`N_aN_a\pm 1`$, and $`n_an_a\pm 1`$. In particular, $`N_\rho N_\rho \pm 1`$ describes one discrete charge tunneling through one barrier from left to right ($``$) or vice versa ($`+`$), while $`n_\rho n_\rho \pm 1`$ describes a unit charge tunneling onto/out of the dot. Each tunneling event through the left (right) barrier contributes a factor $`i\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}(i\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}`$ is the associated tunneling amplitude. To proceed, we express the double path integrals over the paths $`N_a,N_a^{}`$ and $`n_a,n_a^{}`$ as single path integrals over paths along the states of the RDM in the $`(N_a,N_a^{})`$\- and in the $`(n_a,n_a^{})`$-planes. According to the boundary conditions, all paths start and end in diagonal states of the RDM, making intermittent visits to off-diagonal states, cf. Fig. 2. Due to the strong Coulomb interaction ($`g_\rho <1`$), the relevant paths are those for which the system is back to a diagonal state after two tunneling events Weiss99 . We focus on the linear regime ($`V0`$), so that either $`n_\rho =n`$ or $`n_\rho =n+1`$ units of charge are allowed in the dot in the stationary state Kane92 . The current (4) is then expressed as a series expansion in the tunneling amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{R}/\mathrm{L}}`$. To lowest order, the forward rate is divergent. The divergent term reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{f},(4)}=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^2}{8}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}d\tau _i\right)e^{\lambda \tau _2S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau _1)S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau _3)}`$ (9)
$`\times \mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}_{13}^\mathrm{\Delta }[c_{\mathrm{Lf}}(\tau _1)c_{\mathrm{Rf}}(\tau _3)+c_{\mathrm{Rf}}(\tau _1)c_{\mathrm{Lf}}(\tau _3)],`$
where $`\tau _i`$ denote the time intervals elapsed between the different tunneling events. Then, $`\tau _2`$ is the time spent in the intermediate diagonal state. We use the notation $`c_{\kappa \alpha }(\tau )=\mathrm{cos}(R_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau )E_{\kappa ,\alpha }\tau )`$, where the energies are defined as $`E_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{f}}(n)=\mu (n+1)eV/2`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{f}}(n+1)=\mu (n+1)eV/2`$. Here, the chemical potential reads $`\mu (n+1)=E_\rho (nn_0C_\mathrm{G}V_\mathrm{G}/e+1/2)+(3/2)E_\sigma (\sigma _{n+1}^2\sigma _n^2)`$, with $`n_0=4k_\mathrm{F}x_0/\pi `$ being the mean electron number on the dot. Moreover, $`\sigma _n=0`$ ($`\pm 1`$) for an even (odd) number of spins in the dot. The correlations are encapsulated in $`S_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau )`$ being the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of $`W_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }}_a(W_+^a\pm W_{}^a)`$. The long range nature of the Coulomb interaction is reflected in the correlators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`_{13}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, inducing dipole-dipole correlations between the tunneling events across the left and right barrier, cf. Fig. 2. To be definite, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^\alpha =S_\alpha (\tau _1+\tau _2+\tau _3)+S_\alpha (\tau _2)S_\alpha (\tau _1+\tau _2)S_\alpha (\tau _2+\tau _3)`$, and $`_{13}^\alpha =R_\alpha (\tau _1+\tau _2+\tau _3)R_\alpha (\tau _2+\tau _3)+R_\alpha (\tau _1+\tau _2)R_\alpha (\tau _2)`$. Here, $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if the interaction is between tunneling through different barriers, while $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if events through the same barrier are involved. Due to (8), the correlators associated to $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }^\rho `$ behave as $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }^\rho (\tau )\pi k_\mathrm{B}T\tau /g_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$, and $`R_\mathrm{\Delta }^\rho `$ const. at long times. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\rho }0`$ and $`_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\rho }0`$ when $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$. The functions $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ and $`R_\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ associated to the neutral sectors are purely periodic with frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma /\mathrm{}`$.

To cure the divergence of the fourth order rate, we have to sum up divergent irreducible terms of higher order. Therefore, appropriate approximation schemes are required. We make the following approximations: (i) We only consider higher order paths which yield the UST result for vanishing interaction range. (ii) We neglect the dipole-dipole correlations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ due to $`g_\rho 1`$, but keep the correlations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ among the inner dipoles up to linear order. iii) We consider a large cut-off $`\omega _c`$ (scaling limit), and neglect the correlations $`_{ij}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\rho }`$. The sum over the so obtained higher order irreducible paths yields for the total rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{f}=_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{f},(2n)}`$ a finite result. It can be obtained from (9) upon replacing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^\mathrm{\Delta }3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma }`$, $`_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\rho }=0`$, and $`\lambda \lambda +\gamma `$. Here $`\gamma `$ can be interpreted as a linewidth, i.e., $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}+\gamma ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Rf}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Lf}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Rb}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Lb}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\kappa \alpha }=(\mathrm{\Delta }_\kappa ^2/2)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau e^{S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau )}c_{\kappa \alpha }(\tau )`$ are the incoherent rates for forward/backward tunneling through the right/left barrier ($`E_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{f}}(n)=E_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{b}}(n+1),E_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{b}}(n)=E_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{f}}(n+1)`$). In contrast, $`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the lowest order correction to the linewidth due to the finite range interaction. It reads at resonance ($`E_{\kappa ,\alpha }=0`$)

$`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{R}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{L}^2}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}d\tau _ie^{S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau _1)S_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau _3)}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}\tau _2}`$ (10)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}R_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau _1)\mathrm{sin}R_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau _3)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\rho }\mathrm{cosh}3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\sigma }.`$
The incoherent rates yield at resonance to the power-law $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\kappa ,\alpha }T^{\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}}`$, where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}=1/g_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$, and $`1/g_{\mathrm{eff}}=(1/g_\rho +3)/4`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta },\rho }=0`$ one recovers the known UST rate Furusaki98 ; Braggio00  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{f}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Rf}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{Lf}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}T^{\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}}`$, which implies the power law (1) for $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$. While $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ decreases with decreasing temperature, $`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ remains constant. Hence, depending on $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ a cross-over temperature $`T^{}`$ can be identified, with $`k_\mathrm{B}T^{}/\mathrm{}\omega _c=(\gamma ^\mathrm{\Delta }/d_{g_{\mathrm{eff}}})^{11/g_{\mathrm{eff}}}/2\pi `$ with $`d_{g_{\mathrm{eff}}}=\mathrm{\Delta }^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2g_{\mathrm{eff}})|^2/(\omega _c\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/g_{\mathrm{eff}}))`$. For $`T<T^{}`$, the power-law (2) follows. Due to the nonlinearity of the spectral densities $`J_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }}^\rho (\omega )`$, we are able to compute the triple integral numerically only for rather large inverse screening lengths $`a`$, since then the correlators $`W_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }}^\rho (\tau )`$ are well fitted by those of a damped harmonic oscillator. The result for $`a=200x_0^1`$, yielding $`g_\mathrm{\Delta }^1=0.087`$, is shown in the right inset of Fig. 1 for $`g_\rho =0.23`$. Turning to the experiment in Postma00  we should a tyical screening length $`a^135`$nm. For a dot length $`x_0=25`$nm it corresponds to values $`a10x_0^1`$. However, due to the strong asymmetry of the peaks of the spectral densities $`J_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }}^\rho `$ at $`a10x_0^1`$, a numerical evaluation of $`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is no longer possible. In the following, we assume $`a=200x_0^1`$.

We now compare the outcomes of (9) with the experimental results Postma01 . Induced buckles on a SWNT define an island of $`25`$ nm length. We include the contact influence via the Landauer formula, in which the total tube conductance is convoluted with the Fermi distribution from the Au-leads. With typical Luttinger parameters in the range $`g_\rho 0.180.26`$, the agreement between the measured data and the theoretical prediction is very good upon choosing $`g_\rho =0.23`$, leading to $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.54`$. The comparison is depicted in Fig. 3 together with the power law (2). Note that cotunneling events, which should dominate the tails of a conductance peak Furusaki93 ; Sassetti95 ; Averin90 , are not considered here. The absolute value of $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is fitted by the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{R}}`$ (we have chosen $`\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{c}=9\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma `$). Importantly, we find a very good agreement between theoretical and experimental results for $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma `$ with the only one relevant free parameter $`g_\rho `$.

In the regime $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma `$, we observe a deviation from the power law due to the contribution of excited plasmon levels which become thermally accessible, as well as due to a crossover to the UST limit. The result of our simple model with two $`\delta `$shaped tunneling barriers are fitted to the data. We find $`x_0=71`$ nm ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\sigma =23`$ meV) which agrees with the measured value of $`x_0=25`$ nm. A smaller value for $`x_0`$ only shifts the onset of the deviation from the power-law to higher temperatures. Indeed, the measured height profile of the buckle region suggests that the real scattering potential is more complicated. However, our central result, namely the algebraic behavior at low temperature, is not affected by the precise shape of the impurity potentials. We also fit the theoretically predicted line-shape of a conductance peak to the measured data as displayed in the left inset of Fig. 3 and find $`\lambda =0.25`$, which coincides with the experimentally determined value. We measure the width of a calculated conductance peak and find that it increases linearly with increasing temperature, in agreement with the measured data (right inset of Fig. 3). To underpin the algebraic behavior, we also show in Fig. 3 the conductance $`G^{}`$ obtained by integrating the linear conductance over the gate voltage. Due to the linear increase of the peak width with temperature, the exponent of the power law is increased by one, in clear agreement with the experiment.

In summary, we have shown that the finite range of Coulomb interaction can play a crucial role in the resonant tunneling in one-dimensional quantum dots.

We thank U. Weiss and Yu. Nazarov for discussions and T. Teepen and Z. Yao for experimental assistance. We acknowledge support by the Dutch FOM, the German DFG-Emmy-Noether Programm (M.T.), the EC program SATURN, and the Schloeßmann Foundation (G.C.).