text:
# D(18F,p𝛼)¹⁵N reaction applied to nova 𝛾-ray emission

thanks: Present address: EP3, Ruhr-Universität-Bochum, Bochum, Germany.thanks: Permanent address: IPN, IN2P3/CNRS and Université Paris-Sud, F-91406 Orsay Cedex, France.

## Abstract

The 18F(p,$`\alpha )^{15}`$O reaction is recognized to be one of the most important reactions for nova gamma–ray astronomy as it governs the early $`E`$ 511 keV gamma emission. However in the nova temperature regime, its rate remains largely uncertain due to unknown low–energy resonance strengths. We report here the measurement of the D(18F,p)19F($`\alpha )^{15}`$N one–nucleon transfer reaction, induced by a 14 MeV 18F radioactive beam impinging on a CD2 target; outgoing protons and 15N (or $`\alpha `$–particles) were detected in coincidence in two silicon strip detectors. A DWBA analysis of the data resulted in new limits to the contribution of low–energy resonances to the rate of the 18F(p,$`\alpha )^{15}`$O reaction.

Gamma–ray emission from classical novae is dominated, during the first hours, by positron annihilation resulting from the beta decay of radioactive nuclei. The main contribution comes from the decay of 18F (half–life of 110 min) and hence is directly related to 18F formation during the outburstGom98 ; Her99 ; CHJT00 . A good knowledge of the nuclear reaction rates of production and destruction of 18F is required to calculate the amount of 18F synthesized in novae and the resulting gamma–ray emission. The rate relevant for the main mode of 18F destruction (i.e, through 18F(p,$`\alpha )^{15}`$O) has been the object of many experimentsGra01 ; Bar02  (see also refs. in CHJT00 ). However, this rate remains poorly known at novae temperatures (lower than 3.5$`\times 10^8`$ K) due to the scarcity of spectroscopic information for levels near the proton threshold in the compound nucleus 19Ne. This uncertainty is directly related to the unknown proton widths ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$) of the first three levels ($`E_x`$, $`J^\pi `$ = 6.419 MeV, 3/2+; 6.437 MeV, 1/2- and 6.449 MeV, 3/2+). The tails of the corresponding resonances (at respectively $`E_R`$ = 8, 26 and 38 keV) can dominate the astrophysical S–factor in the relevant energy range CHJT00 . As a consequence of these nuclear uncertainties, the 18F production in novae and the early gamma–ray emission used to be uncertain by a factor of $``$300CHJT00 . Unfortunately, a direct measurement of the relevant resonance strengths is impossible due to the very low Coulomb barrier penetrability. Hence, we used an indirect method aiming at the determination of the one nucleon spectroscopic factors ($`S`$) in the analog levels of the mirror nucleus (19F) by a neutron transfer reaction: D(18F,p)19F. Assuming the equality of one nucleon spectroscopic factors in analog levels, it is possible to calculate the proton widths through the relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=S\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{s}.p.}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{s}.p.}`$ is the single particle width. In this rapid communication we present the experimental technique, the results of a DWBA analysis and the implications on the 18F(p,$`\alpha )^{15}`$O thermonuclear reaction rate.

The experiment has been carried out at the Centre de Recherches du Cyclotron at Louvain–la–Neuve (Belgium) where we used a 18F radioactive beam. The 18F was produced through the 18O(p,n)18F reaction, chemically extracted to form CH$`{}_{}{}^{18}{}_{3}{}^{}`$F molecules, transferred to the cyclotron source, ionized to the $`2^+`$ state and accelerated to 14 MeVCog99 . A total of 15 bunches of $`<`$1 Ci of 18F were produced providing each a mean beam intensity of 2.2$`\times 10^6`$ particles per second over a period of $``$2 hours. The beam contamination from its stable isobar was very small, 18O / 18$``$ 10-3. The 18F beam was directed on deuteriated polyethylene (CD2) targets of $``$100 $`\mu `$g/cm2 thickness made at Louvain–La–Neuve. For the energy considered here (1.4 MeV in the center of mass), the deuteron and the outgoing proton are both below the Coulomb barrier. In a similar transfer reaction 19F(d,p)20FLop64  studied at the same c.m. energy, strong direct contributions have been observed. Hence, with a stripping integral dominated by the best known portion of the wave–function, accurate extraction of spectroscopic factors is expected.

The experimental setup is depicted in Figure 1. It consists of two silicon multistrip detectors composed of sectors with 16 concentric stripsDav00 . The first detector, LAMP, is positioned 9 cm upstream from the target; it consists of 6 sectors forming a conical shape covering laboratory angles between 115 and 160 (i.e. forward center–of–mass angles between 12 and 40) providing a good acceptance for protons in the domain of interest for the differential cross section. The other detector, LEDA, is made up of 8 sectors forming a disk positioned 40 cm downstream from the target and is used for background reduction and normalization. The levels of interests are situated high above the alpha emission threshold (at 4.013 MeV) and their almost exclusive decay mode is through 19F$`{}_{}{}^{}_{}^{15}`$N+$`\alpha `$. Hence, to reduce background, we required coincidences between a proton in LAMP and a 15N (or an $`\alpha `$–particle discriminated by time of flight) in LEDA. Following Monte–Carlo simulations, the proton detection efficiency is found to be 27% and is only slightly reduced to 19% when the coincidence condition is applied.

Thanks to the kinematics, only protons and $`\alpha `$ from D(18F,p)19F and D(18F,$`\alpha )^{16}`$O can reach LAMP. Using energy, angle and time–of–flight information, the events of interest with one proton in LAMP are selected. The excitation energy of the decaying 19F levels can be kinematically reconstructed from the energies and angles of the detected protons and the known beam energy. The energy calibration of the silicon strips has been done with a triple–line alpha source and a small correction ($``$ 1 %) on the excitation energy was introduced using a linear fit to the well–known energies of some lines in D(18F,p)19F. This correction is needed because the reconstructed energy is very sensitive to the precise detector position (a 1 mm error induces a $``$ 10 keV energy shift). The statistical error from the fitting procedure induced by this correction is about 5 keV at 6.5 MeV. The corresponding coincidence spectrum is shown in Figure 2 where vertical lines correspond to the known position of the 19F levelsTilley  populated with low transferred angular momentum ($`l2`$). The resolution ($`100`$ keV FWHM) is not sufficient to separate the various levels, but the two 3/2+ levels of interest at 6.497 and 6.528 MeV (the analogs of the 3/2+ levels in 19Ne) are well separated from the other groups of levels.

The angular distribution shown in Figure 3 is the result of a selection made on the 6.5 MeV peak in the coincidence spectrum. The coincidence efficiency is determined with a Monte-Carlo simulation taking an isotropic angular distribution for the $`\alpha `$-decay of the 19F. Coincidences were initially designed to eliminate 18O(d,p)19O events induced by a possible isobaric beam contamination. This was not essential for this purpose because of the high beam purity, but it was useful to reduce the background from electronic noise affecting the low proton energy region. We checked that the ratio between coincidence and single events was well reproduced by Monte–Carlo simulations. Rutherford elastic scattering of 18F on carbon from the target, detected in LEDA, provides the (target thickness) $`\times `$ (beam intensity) normalization. At such low beam intensity, the target stoichiometry is not expected to be modified during the experiment. This was confirmed by proton elastic scattering analysis of the targets done after the experiment at the Orsay ARAMIS facility. The solid lines in Figure 3 correspond to theoretical DWBA calculations made with the code FRESCOFRESCO  in the zero–range approximation for different transfered angular momentum ($`l=0,2`$). The nuclear potentials were taken from Ref. Lop64  in which a similar neutron transfer reaction, 19F(d,p)20F, was studied at the same center–of–mass energy (subcoulomb transfer). A typical direct mechanism pattern was observed for 11 angular distributions of 20F excited states. The comparison between our data and the calculations indicates a strong dominance of $`l=0`$ transfer for the sum of the contribution of the two 3/2+ levels and the value obtained for the total spectroscopic factor is $`S_1^{}+S_2^{}=0.21`$ 111Preliminary results from Kozub et al. quoted in a very recent paperBar02  are in agreement with our valueSitges02 .. Using an alternate set of optical parameters from a compilationPey76  led to the same spectroscopic factor value showing the stability of the result with respect to variation of the optical parameters. Although no peak is seen in Figure 2 for the 1/2- level ($`E_x`$ = 6.429 MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 280 keV) due to its large total width, it is possible to derive an upper limit for the spectroscopic factor of $`S_3^{}<0.15`$ assuming an $`l=1`$ transfer (see Figure 2). The important result of this analysis is that the contribution of these two $`3/2^+`$ resonances to the destruction rate of 18cannot be neglected. Sources of uncertainty on spectroscopic factors are statistics (negligible), normalization to elastic scattering data ($``$ 10 %) but the major one is the DWBA method itself. This last one is difficult to evaluate but using statistics of ratios between the directly measured proton widths and the ones extracted from a DWBA analysisVer90 , we estimate this error to 25% (r.m.s.) for spectroscopic factors greater than 0.01. Larger deviation occurs for smaller spectroscopic factor due to the contribution of other mechanisms, but the high value of 0.21 provides a safe margin.

To show the improvement brought by this experiment, we present in Figure 4 the rates calculated in the same way as in Ref. CHJT00  except that we use new spectroscopic factors obtained from this experiment and the new value for the 330 keV resonance strengthBar02 ($`\omega \gamma =1.48\pm 0.46`$ eV). Assuming the equality of spectroscopic factors between analog levels one obtains $`S_1+S_2`$ = $`S_1^{}+S_2^{}`$ = 0.21 and $`S_3`$ = $`S_3^{}<0.15`$ where $`S_1^{}`$, $`S_2^{}`$ and $`S_3^{}`$ correspond to the $`E_x,J^\pi `$ = 6.497 MeV, $`3/2^+`$; 6.528 MeV, $`3/2^+`$; 6.429 MeV, $`1/2^{}`$ levels in 19F while $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ correspond to the $`E_x,J^\pi `$ = 6.419 MeV, $`3/2^+`$; 6.449 MeV, $`3/2^+`$; 6.437 MeV, $`1/2^{}`$ analog levels in 19Ne, respectively. Taking into account the moderate uncertainty on the energy calibration, the data favors a dominant contribution from the 6.528 MeV level i.e. $`S_1^{}0.`$ and $`S_2^{}0.2`$. However the assignment of the two analog levels in 19Ne is not firmly established. We cannot exclude inversion or mixing of these two $`3/2^+`$ levels. Hence to be conservative, for the calculation of the rate, we allow the individual spectroscopic factors to take any value compatible with the $`S_1+S_2`$ = 0.21 and $`S_3<0.15`$ constraints. To show the improvement provided by this experiment, we calculate upper and lower rate limits by setting $`S_1=0`$, $`S_2=0.21`$ (no inversion), $`S_3=0.15`$ and $`S_1=0.21`$, $`S_2=0`$ (inversion), $`S_3=0`$ respectively. Here we neglect the error associated with the spectroscopic factor extraction discussed above. As a consequence, the rate uncertainty is reduced by a factor of $`5`$ (Figure 4) in the temperature range of novae. This is mainly due to the reduced contribution of the 1/2- level while the impact on the rate of the new contribution of the two 3/2+ levels is more important at low temperatures. It is worth noticing that these new rate limits still encompass the nominal rateCHJT00  previously used in the most recent gamma–ray flux calculations. Since the repartition of spectroscopic factors between the two $`3/2^+`$ levels is not settled, the choice $`S_1=0.1`$ and $`S_2=0.1`$ for the nominal rateCHJT00  is still acceptable. However, the new strengthBar02  of the resonance at 330 keV has to be used for the rate calculation.

This work has been supported by the European Community-Access to Research Infrastructure action of the Improving Human Potential Program, contract N HPRI-CT-1999-00110. One of us (P.L.) is a Research Director of the National Fund for Scientific Research, Brussels. We thank Alan Shotter and his team for allowing us to use the LEDA and LAMP detectors from the Louvain-La-Neuve and Edinburgh collaboration.


format: text

text:
# Microlensing towards M31 with MDM data

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational microlensing is a powerful tool for the detection of dark matter in galactic haloes in form of MACHOs (Paczyński (1986)). Intensive searches in our Galaxy have shown that up to 20% of the halo could be formed by objects of around $`M0.4M_{}`$ (Alcock et al. (2000); Lasserre et al. (2000)). This result is still debated (e.g. Jetzer et al. (2002)), and remains to be confirmed. For this purpose it is useful to probe the MACHO distribution along different lines of sight.

A survey of M31, nearby and similar to our own Galaxy, can supply several insights into this problem. Briefly, it tests a different line of sight in our Galaxy, it allows to probe M31’s own halo globally and finally, the inclination of the M31 disk should give an unmistakable signature of microlensing events (Crotts (1992); Baillon et al. (1993); Jetzer (1994)).

Several collaborations have undertaken a search for microlensing events towards M31 in the past years: AGAPE (Ansari et al. (1999)); MEGA (Crotts et al. (2000)); POINT-AGAPE (Aurière et al. (2001)); WeCapp (Riffeser et al. (2001)). In this same framework we have already reported on the analysis of a partial set of the MDM data in Calchi Novati et al. (2002, hereafter Paper I ). Furthermore, the POINT-AGAPE collaboration has given evidence of 4 short high S/N ratio microlensing candidates (Paulin-Henriksson et al. (2002), 2003).

In the present paper we conclude the analysis of the MDM data started in Paper I . We complement the MDM data with INT observations taken by the POINT-AGAPE collaboration. Furthermore, we discuss the issue of selection criteria for microlensing events, especially with respect to the background of variable stars, and we present results from an analysis based on different criteria. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$2 we summarize the observational setup and give some details of the data analysis, dealing in particular with some improvements in the selection procedure; in $`\mathrm{\S }`$3 we introduce the INT data and discuss how we use the longer baseline they give us to construct a strong supplementary selection criterion; $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 is devoted to the results of the analysis; in $`\mathrm{\S }`$5 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Observations and data analysis

### 2.1 Observational setup

We analyse data collected on the 1.3 m McGraw-Hill Telescope, at the MDM observatory, Kitt Peak (USA), towards the two sides of M31 including the bulge111The data are shared with the MEGA collaboration.. Two fields are observed, located in $`\alpha =`$ 00h 43m 24s, $`\delta =41^{}12^{}10^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000) (“Target”, whose data have been the object of the analysis presented in Paper I ) and $`\alpha =`$ 00h 42m 14s, $`\delta =41^{}24^{}20^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000) (“Control”). The Target field is centred on the far side of M31 while the Control field is centred on the near side. Throughout the observations a $`2048\times 2048`$ pixel CCD camera, with a field of view of $`17^{}\times 17^{}`$, has been used.

Two filters, similar to standard $`R`$ and $`I`$ Cousins, have been used in order to test achromaticity. Furthermore, this colour information gives us the chance to have a better check on red variable stars, which can contaminate the search for microlensing events.

We analyse data taken starting from October 1998 to the end of December 1999. While the baseline of the Control field is the same as that of the Target field, the Control field has only about 20 nights of observations for both filters222Each night $``$ 20(11) images are taken in the $`R`$($`I`$) filter, which are then averaged to get the single image per night that we use in the following analysis., which is only about half as much data as the Target field. The average value of the seeing is $`1.^{\prime \prime }6`$.

The photometric calibration is done with respect to a sample of reference secondaries identified in our frame (Magnier et al. (1993)). As the photometric conditions for the reference images in the two fields are similar, the zero point calibrations reported in Paper I  still hold.

### 2.2 Reduction and analysis

The reduction procedure and the candidate selection were discussed in detail in Paper I . Here we just recall the basic points and discuss in more detail some aspects that have since been improved.

#### 2.2.1 Pixel Lensing

Due to the distance of the target, the potential sources of microlensing events are not resolved stars. We use the pixel lensing technique developed by the AGAPE group to detect flux variations of unresolved sources (Ansari et al. (1997))333An alternative method based on image subtraction is currently used by the MEGA collaboration (Tomaney & Crotts (1996)).. In order to cope with photometric and seeing variations, we first choose for each filter a reference image (the $`R`$ reference image is also the geometric reference for both filters) and then calibrate the flux444With the notable exception of geometrical alignment, throughout the analysis we substitute for the pixel value the sum of the fluxes taken in a square of $`5\times 5`$ pixels around the central pixel, i.e., the corresponding *superpixel* value. of all other images with respect to the reference image by means of a linear correction. Our seeing correction is empirical and does not require the evaluation of the PSF of the image (Paper I ).

#### 2.2.2 Bump detection

Following Paper I , we look for bumps (in $`R`$ band) by a statistical analysis of the light curve. To this end we construct the two estimators for the significance of a variation $`L`$ and $`Q`$. We define

$$L=\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{jbump}P(\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Phi }>\mathrm{\Phi }_j)\right)\text{given}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{bkg},\sigma _j,$$
(2.1)
where

$$P(\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Phi }>\mathrm{\Phi }_j)=_{\mathrm{\Phi }_j}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{\sigma _j\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{bkg})^2}{2\sigma _j^2}\right];$$
(2.2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ and $`\sigma _j`$ are the flux and its associated error in a superpixel at time $`t_j`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{bkg}`$ is an estimator of the baseline level, and a “bump” is defined as a variation with at least 3 consecutive points more than $`3\sigma `$ above the baseline. We define

$$Q\frac{\chi _{const}^2\chi _{pacz}^2}{\chi _{pacz}^2/\mathrm{dof}},$$
(2.3)
where $`\chi _{const}^2`$ is the $`\chi ^2`$ calculated with respect to the constant-flux hypothesis and $`\chi _{pacz}^2`$ is the $`\chi ^2`$ calculated with respect to a Paczyński fit. We stress that $`Q`$ is evaluated along the entire light curve, while $`L`$ is evaluated only along the bump.

In Paper I  we carried out the analysis to detect clusters of variable light curves using $`L`$. We eventually retained from the sample of selected light curves (the ones with the highest value of $`L`$ in a given cluster) only those characterized by $`Q>Q_{thresh}`$.

Here we follow a somewhat different approach in that we select clusters related to flux variations by demanding $`Q>Q_{thresh}`$. Compared to the selection based on $`L`$, we are biased in favor of monobump-shape variations. Moreover, we exclude all those light curves showing spurious variations for which a high value of $`L`$ can happen to be induced, e.g., by an underestimation of the baseline level.

To conclude with the bump detection, we evaluate for all the pixels in each cluster $`L`$, and we then proceed as in Paper I . This is a better approach because $`L`$ is based on an evaluation of the baseline more appropriate to this purpose, that is, to selecting the light curve showing the maximum flux deviation from the baseline.

#### 2.2.3 Shape analysis

For microlensing events the flux variation must be unique, it must follow (in the point-like and uniform–motion approximations) the symmetric Paczyński shape, and it must be achromatic.

The flux as a function of time for an event with amplification $`A(t)`$ and an unlensed source $`\varphi ^{}`$ can be written as

$$\varphi (t)=\varphi _{bkg}+\left[A\left(t\right)1\right]\varphi ^{},$$
(2.4)
where $`\varphi _{bkg}`$ is the background flux including $`\varphi ^{}`$.

The achromatic shape analysis is carried out as in Paper I . We perform a 7-parameter Paczyński fit to the two bands simultaneously (background level $`\varphi _{bkg}`$, source flux without amplification $`\varphi ^{}`$, and the parameters of the amplification: time of maximum amplification $`t_0`$, Einstein time $`t_\text{E}`$, and the impact parameter $`u_{min}`$). In the absence of direct knowledge of the source flux from e.g., a *Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image* (e.g., Aurière et al. (2001)) or an indirect measurement of it from a high signal-to-noise ratio lightcurve (e.g. Paulin-Henriksson et al. (2003)), there is a degeneracy among the three parameters $`\varphi ^{}`$, $`t_\mathrm{E}`$, and $`u_{min}`$ (Gould (1996)). For these cases we retain two “effective parameters”, the time width $`t_{1/2}=t_{1/2}(t_\text{E},u_{min})`$ and the excess at maximum with respect to the background $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{max}=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{max}(\varphi ^{},u_{min})`$ (from which we evaluate the “magnitude at maximum” $`R_{max}`$ and the colour at maximum $`(RI)_C`$). For an event to be achromatic we have to test whether, along the bump, the ratio of the deviation of the flux from the background in the two bands remains constant in time ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _R/\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _I=\varphi _R^{}/\varphi _I^{}=`$ constant)555Note that this same test can be applied to resolved-source microlensing, provided that “background” is replaced by “baseline”, i.e. the combined flux from the true source plus any unresolved blended companions. That is, blending breaks achromaticity only for the ratio of the total fluxes in two bands, not differences in these fluxes from baseline..

Furthermore, we carry out the Durbin-Watson test (Durbin & Watson (1951)), which is sensitive to time correlation among consecutive residuals. In effect, it is able to check whether consecutive points lie, for instance, all above or below the best Paczyński fit shape, such behaviour being characteristic of variable stars (and for which the $`\chi ^2`$ test can say little). The test is based upon the evaluation of a Durbin-Watson coefficient, $`dw`$, which must lie in an interval that depends on the number of points along the light curve, e.g. for 20 points it must be $`1.41(1.15)<dw<2.59(2.85)`$ at the 10% (2%) level of significance.

## 3 The baseline of INT data as a test for bump uniqueness

### 3.1 The problem of variable sources

A main problem in the search for microlensing events is the estimate of the background noise given by variable sources. This is particularly serious in the case of pixel lensing for two main reasons. First, the class of stars to which we are in principle most sensitive are the red giants, for which a large fraction are variable stars (regular or irregular). Second, as we look for *pixel* flux variations, it is always possible to collect (in the same pixel) light from more than one source whose flux is varying.

Thus, in the analysis we are faced with two problems: large-amplitude variable sources whose signal can mimic a microlensing signal, and variable sources of smaller amplitude whose signal can give rise to non-Gaussian fluctuations superimposed on the background or on other physical variations.

In Paper I  we followed a sufficiently conservative approach to minimize the impact of these problems. We adopted severe criteria in the shape analysis with respect to the Paczyński fit (stringent cut for both the $`\chi ^2`$ and the Durbin-Watson test) and, furthermore, we eliminated candidates with both a long timescale ($`t_{1/2}>40`$ days) and a red colour ($`(RI)_C>1`$), since these most likely originate from variable stars.

As we had already noted, this analysis suffered from the intrinsic limitation of an insufficient baseline, so that the variable-source issue could not be conclusively tested.

Here we take advantage of the opportunity afforded by access to reduced INT data to extend our selected light curves. As we show, this will be a key element of our analysis.

### 3.2 INT extension of MDM light curves

The INT fields almost completely cover the MDM fields (except for a sizable fraction of the Control field far from the M31 bulge and a narrow band in the Target field). The good sampling during the two INT seasons 1999-2000 of data acquired in Sloan $`r^{}`$ and $`i^{}`$ bands666For this analysis we do not use the available $`g^{}`$ band data., together with their high quality, allows a straightforward and quantitative analysis.

As a first step we have calculated the astrometric777The INT pixel size is $`0.^{\prime \prime }33`$ versus $`0.^{\prime \prime }50`$ for MDM pixels. transformations between the different fields (data from 4 different INT CCDs are needed to cover the two MDM fields). We found that a global transformation over one entire field led to systematic errors as large as $`5^{\prime \prime }`$. Hence, we use our large samples of 1194 and 845 references stars in the Target and Control field, respectively, to make a linear (i.e., 6-parameter) local transformation for each selected pixel. We demand a minimum of 24 reference stars, which are usually found within a square of $`2^{}3^{}`$ about the selected pixel. We thereby reach an average astrometric precision of $`0.^{\prime \prime }2`$. To this we add the error in locating the center of the variation, so that on average we get $`\sigma 0.^{\prime \prime }5`$.

As a second step we have determined from the cross-analysis of about 30 selected resolved stars in each field, a “colour equation” that allows us to align the MDM ($`R`$ and $`I`$) and INT ($`r^{}`$ and $`i^{}`$) instrumental magnitudes closely enough to permit a quantitative comparison of the relative flux variations in each light curve.

The uniqueness condition for a given variation requires that the extension of the light curve into the INT data should remain flat. However, the analysis of the PA-N1 event (Aurière et al. (2001)) has shown that a microlensing light curve may be contaminated by a neighbouring variable star. Therefore, care must be taken before rejecting a microlensing event because of a second bump, and it is essential to test the following issues: the relative astrometric position of the two bumps and the similarity of the shape of the two deviations.

Given a candidate microlensing light curve in the MDM data, we locate the corresponding INT light curve, and then calculate the estimator $`L`$ in a square of $`7\times 7`$ pixels around the central pixel to check whether there is a variation, and where it is located. If we detect a variation in the INT data, we calculate its amplitude and width with a Paczyński fit in order to compare quantitatively the two variations.

As a criterion of rejection for a given MDM candidate microlensing event for which we find a variation on its extension into the INT data, *i.e.*, a likely variable star, we demand that the position of the INT variation be compatible with the corresponding MDM variation within $`3\sigma `$ *and* that the relative widths and deviations of flux lie within $`6\sigma `$ as evaluated from the two independent Paczyński fits888We allow here a larger margin because we are aware that probing such an effect can be difficult, especially when dealing with variations showing both a long time width and a red colour, these being possibly due to red variable stars that do not necessarily show a strictly periodic and regular behaviour..

## 4 Candidate selection

### 4.1 Target and Control fields: the first selection

We now present the results in both MDM fields, Target and Control, of an analysis complemented where possible by the stability test using the INT data.

The threshold value for the estimators of the significance of the bump are fixed as in Paper I  ($`Q>100`$ and $`L_1>100`$, but now we proceed as explained in $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.2.2999We note that, in principle, for a cluster of pixels with $`Q>100`$, we can have $`L_1<100`$.). The selection criteria are the same as in Paper I : the selected light curves must have enough points along the bump (at least 4 points on both sides of the maximum, and 3 inside the interval $`t_0\pm t_{1/2}/2`$); for the Paczyński fit we require that $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}<1.5`$ and that the Durbin-Watson test be satisfied at the 10% level; we require that *either* $`t_{1/2}<40`$ days *or* $`(RI)_C<1`$.

Due to the different approach we follow in bump detection, in the Target field we find 1 more light curve in addition to the 5 we already reported in Paper I . In the Control field we find 4 light curves compatible with microlensing.

We summarize the main physical characteristics of these 10 events in Fig. 1, which shows $`R_{max}`$ vs $`t_{1/2}`$ and $`(RI)_C`$ vs $`t_{1/2}`$.

As can be noted, with respect to the selected light curves in Paper I , we tend to lack short timescale candidates among the new events and, moreover, 3 of the 5 candidates lie at the boundary we have fixed for the colour-timescale compatibility with a microlensing signal.

The INT data allow us to check the stability of all 5 Target light curves and 2 of the 4 Control light curves. In Table 1 we summarize the results of this comparative analysis, relative astrometry and relative shape analysis.

As can be seen all 8 MDM events show compatible variations on their INT extensions. (In particular, we note that the positions of the two bumps are always compatible at $`1\sigma `$ level). As a result, *all* the checked light curves are *rejected* as possible microlensing candidates. As an example, we show MDM light curves T4 and T5 (respectively, the shortest and the brightest flux variations detected) together with their INT extensions (Fig. 2).

This analysis shows how the sample of microlensing candidates derived from this selection is strongly contaminated by variable stars. The two additional Control light curves for which there are no INT extensions have parameters: $`t_{1/2}=51\pm 5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}64}\pm 6`$ days and $`(RI)_C=0.9\pm 0.2`$, i.e., they are relatively long candidates. It then follows that, without INT vetting, it is no longer reasonable to look at them as viable microlensing candidates. Since, also looking at the results of the previous analysis, we suspect them to be red variable stars but cannot prove this without an extended baseline, we must exclude, when searching for such long variations, the non-INT portions of the MDM fields from the analysis.

### 4.2 Search for short duration events

The analysis carried out in the previous section shows that variable sources can mimic the Paczyński shape quite well, even with data available in two bands. It seems therefore appropriate in the search for viable microlensing candidates to relax the criteria introduced to characterize the shape of the variation and, on the other hand, to restrict the allowed space of physical parameters. We remark that the longer baseline now available make this approach viable. This search is also motivated by the lack of self–lensing events, which we would expect to find.

We then proceed to a new selection with the same threshold values for $`L`$ and $`Q`$. For the temporal sampling, we require at least 3 points inside the interval $`t_0\pm t_{1/2}/2`$, with at least one on each side of $`t_0`$. We then impose the following conditions:

* $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}<5`$;
* DW test at $`2\%`$ significance level;
* $`t_{1/2}<20`$ days101010We note that these short timescales are consistent with what we expect from the Monte Carlo simulations discussed in Paper I ..

This search yields 8 additional light curves (4 in each field) which have durations $`t_{1/2}(13,20)`$ days and flux deviations $`R_{max}(21.0,22.8)`$. The stability test on the INT data, as outlined in $`\mathrm{\S }`$3.2, allows us to reject 5 of these variations as microlensing candidates. We are left with three light curves, all lying in the Control field. We label these C3, C4 and C5, the last having no INT extension. The issue of the stability on the INT extension of the two remaining candidates deserves some additional comments.

MDM-C3: An INT variation is detected only in the $`i^{}`$ light curve. Its position is compatible within $`1\sigma `$ to that of the MDM variation. We note that the observed $`i^{}`$ variation is significantly smaller than that observed on the MDM $`I`$ light curve and, as mentioned, the $`r^{}`$ light curve is flat. Moreover, the time width of the MDM variation is actually quite short. This analysis indicates that, although sitting in the same position, the two variations may be due to different sources. At the same time we are aware that the INT data do not allow us to fully characterize the shape of the bump. We thus consider the stability test for this candidate to be *inconclusive*.

MDM-C4: We detect a variation on the INT data that we localize within $`1\sigma `$ from the corresponding MDM variation. We evaluate the variations of flux in $`r^{}`$ and $`i^{}`$ as being compatible within 3 and $`1\sigma `$ respectively with the corresponding variations on the MDM light curve. However, the observed time width of the INT variation, $`t_{1/2}70`$ days, is significantly larger than the evaluated time width of the MDM variation, $`t_{1/2}13`$ days. As is the case for C3, the shape analysis may indicate that we are observing on the same light curve a variable star (a likely long period red variable) *and* a microlensing event. Our data are, however, insufficient to confirm or to reject this hypothesis. In this case too we then consider the stability test for this candidate to be *inconclusive*.

In Table 2 we report the main characteristics of these light curves, position and physical parameters as evaluated from the Paczyński fit. We note that, lacking any information from other sources (e.g. *HST* images) to measure the flux of the unamplified source, and since, on the basis of the fit alone, the data do not allow us to break the parameter degeneracy, we have no way to get any reliable information on the physical parameter $`t_\text{E}`$, so that also no reliable estimate of the mass of the lens is possible.

As can be noted by looking at the light curves (Figs. 3, 4 and 5), the sampling does not allow us to test conclusively the symmetry of the bump. Regarding the achromaticity, the ratio of $`R`$ and $`I`$ deviations from the baseline for the points belonging to the bump is about constant, as expected for microlensing events. We note that the MDM-C3 light curve, whose variation is quite short and very red, occupies a peculiar position in the $`(RI)_C`$$`t_{1/2}`$ parameter space (Fig. 1, upper left of right panel).

Even if the available data do not allow us to draw firm conclusions on the nature of the selected flux variations, their projected distance from the centre of M31 (see Table 1) make them marginally consistent with the self–lensing events that we expect according to the Monte Carlo simulations discussed in Paper I .

### 4.3 Comparison with POINT-AGAPE results

In the framework of microlensing searches towards M31, the most promising results have been so far reported by the POINT-AGAPE collaboration. In particular, they have identified 4 high S/N (likely to be microlensing) light curves with high flux variation, $`R_{max}<21`$, and short timescale ($`t_{1/2}<25`$ days, with 3 that are as small as $`t_{1/2}2`$ days), two of which lie quite near the M31 bulge, where, however, data still do not allow one to answer unambiguously the question of whether they are due to self–lensing effects or to MACHOs (Paulin-Henriksson et al. (2003)). We note that we lack, in the MDM data, such short duration and highly amplified events. We conjecture that this apparent discrepancy can plausibly be explained by the relative quality of the data sets In particular, relative to the MDM data set, the INT data cover a much ($`>3`$ times) larger portion of the sky around the M31 bulge, with more than the double the nights of observation. In particular, in the MDM Control field, with at best one point every 3 nights, we can obviously not characterize events of such short duration. On the other hand, we point out that while the POINT-AGAPE analysis has been carried out with a threshold on the magnitude at maximum of the detected variations ($`R_{max}<21`$), in the analysis presented here we do not adopt such a threshold (we recall, see Paper I , that we are sensitive to variations down to around $`R_{max}23`$).

## 5 Discussion and perspectives

We have reported on the status of the analysis of the MDM data carried out in the framework of a search for microlensing events towards M31. As a result of a full analysis of 2 years of data, in which we have also taken advantage of the longer baseline made available by the use of some INT data, we have first excluded as viable all the microlensing candidates previously reported in Paper I . Second, we have reported the selection of three more candidates compatible with a Paczyński light curve, which may possibly be due to self lensing. On examining their extensions into the INT data, we find a second variation in both cases for which such data are available. However, these variations are strikingly different from and much longer than the short-duration events seen in the MDM data. Hence, it is plausible that each of these second variations is due to an unrelated variable star superimposed on a true microlensing signal. The available data do not permit us to resolve this question.

We have discussed the issue of variable-star contamination of the signal: we note that this is a significantly more serious problem than in the cases of the search for microlensing events towards the Magellanic clouds and the Galactic bulge in which one monitors the flux variations of resolved sources of known type.

The analysis reported in this paper shows once again the crucial role played by a frequent sampling of the data and the total baseline length, both of which are essential to getting meaningful results when extracting microlensing signals from the background of variable sources. In this light, the forthcoming full analysis of the detection efficiency, together with results from the new sets of data acquired in the 2001 and 2002 seasons at both 1.3m and 2.4m MDM telescopes with a new 8K-CCD array (as well as the prospective 2003 campaign at the TT1 telescope in the south of Italy, Bozza et al. (1999)), should eventually give us the opportunity to draw firmer conclusions on the issue of the MACHO fraction in the halo of M31 galaxy.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the referee for useful comments and suggestions. We are grateful to the POINT-AGAPE collaboration for allowing us the access to their data set. SCN was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and by the Tomalla Foundation. AG was supported by grant 02-01266 from the US NSF.


text:
# Freezing of stripes in lightly-doped La2-xSrxCuO4 as manifested in magnetic and transport properties of untwinned single crystals

## Abstract

Resistivity and magnetization measurements are used for studying the transverse sliding of AF domain boundaries in lightly doped La2-xSrxCuO4. We discuss that it is the freezing of the transverse boundary motion that is responsible for the appearance of “spin-glass” features at low temperatures.

, ,

thanks: Corresponding author. E-mail: lavrov@criepi.denken.or.jp

In high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, charges and spins in the CuO2 planes tend to self-organize in a peculiar striped manner, where the doped holes form quasi-1D “charged stripes” separating antiferromagnetic (AF) domains . Manifestations of the unidirectional AF domain (stripe) structure in lightly doped La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) have been found in neutron scattering  and in such macroscopic properties as magnetic susceptibility  and resistivity ; in particular, remarkable in-plane resistivity anisotropy  has shown that the charge motion is actually facilitated along the stripe direction. Here we report that the resistivity and magnetization can also be used for studying the transverse sliding of the AF domain boundaries, and show that the stripe freezing in lightly doped LSCO coincides with the transition into the “spin-glass” state.

The details of LSCO crystal growth and detwinning (the crystals were detwinned to avoid the stripe pinning by crystallographic twin boundaries) along with details of measurements are described in Refs. .

Owing to the spin canting induced by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, the AF order in LSCO is always accompanied with a weak ferromagnetic component . At zero magnetic field, the weak ferromagnetism is hidden: the direction of canted moments depends on the local phase of the AF order, and is opposite in neighboring CuO2 planes (Fig. 1a). Apparently, if CuO2 planes themselves contain AF domains with opposite phases, the canted moments form a similar pattern in the in-plane direction, changing their sign upon crossing the antiphase AF-domain boundaries (Fig. 1b). A magnetic field applied along the $`c`$-axis couples with the canted moments and eventually causes a transition into the weak-ferromagnetic (WF) state , where the phase of the AF order is unified and all the canted moments are aligned along the field direction (Fig. 1d); the corresponding step-like increase in the magnetization is illustrated in Fig. 1e. Whatever the initial magnetic state is – a homogeneous AF order (Fig. 1a) or a striped domain structure (Fig. 1b) – the transition into the WF state should involve the transverse motion of the antiphase domain boundaries as shown in Fig. 1c. This opens an intriguing possibility of studying the kinetics of the transverse domain-boundary (stripe) sliding.

A large change in the resistivity at the WF transition  points to the magnetoresistance (MR) as the most convenient probe to watch the transition kinetics. Figure 2 illustrates the MR behavior in a La1.99Sr0.01CuO4 crystal upon increasing and decreasing the magnetic field. While the WF transition is virtually reversible at high temperatures, a significant hysteresis develops upon cooling, as the pinning of the AF domain boundaries gains strength (Fig. 2). Using the transition fields obtained from the MR data, we have sketched the magnetic phase diagram (Fig. 3) which clearly shows that the transition region between the AF and WF states broadens abruptly upon cooling below $`14`$K – exactly the temperature where spin-glass features appear in weak-field magnetization data . Apparently, at low temperatures the mobility of the AF domain boundaries becomes inhibited so that the equilibrium state cannot be reached over the experimental time scale.

The following physical picture can be drawn from the obtained results: At high temperatures, the AF domain boundaries are mobile and fluctuating in the transverse direction; however, at low temperatures their pinning quickly gains strength, bringing about the freezing of the AF domain structure, and corresponding memory features in transport and magnetic properties.

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Segawa for invaluable technical assistance.


text:
# Partial Wave Analysis of Scattering with Nonlocal Aharonov-Bohm Effect

## Abstract

Partial wave theory of a two dimensional scattering problem for an arbitray short range potential and a nonlocal Aharonov-Bohm magnetic flux is established. The scattering process of a “hard disk” like potential and the magnetic flux is examined. Since the nonlocal influence of magnetic flux on the charged particles is universal, the nonlocal effect in hard disk case is expected to appear in quite general potential system and will be useful in understanding some phenomena in mesoscopic phyiscs.

In this paper we study the scattering amplitude and the cross section of a charged particle moving in a short range potential with scattering center located at the origin, and the Aharonov-Bohm ($`AB`$) magnetic flux along z-axis 1 . The nonintegrable phase factor (NPF) 2 ; 3 ; 4  is used to couple the magnetic flux with the particle angular momentum such that the partial wave method can be conveniently developed 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 . As a realization of the method, a charged particle scattered by a “hard disk” like potential plus the magnetic flux is discussed in detail. Several interesting nonlocal effects of the magnetic flux in the hard disk model are concluded as follows: (1) In the long wave length limit ( equivalently, short range potential) the total cross section is drastically suppressed at quantized magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(2n+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2,`$ where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the fundamental magnetic flux quantum $`hc/e`$. The global influence of the magnetic flux on the cross section is manifested with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ periodicity. On the other hand, the cross section approaches the flux-free case in the short wave length limit, i.e. the quantum interference feature of the nonlocal effect gradually disappears, and the cross section approaches the classical limit. (2) If the hard disk is used to simulate the boson (fermion) moving in two dimensional space, the scattering process of identical particles carrying the magnetic flux shows that the total cross section is suppressed at quantized magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(2n+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for bosons ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=2n\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for fermions) and exhibits the global structure with $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ periodicity. Since the nonlocal influence of the magnetic flux on the charged particle are universal, the influences should be general in similar systems, and may be useful in understanding some transport phenomena in mesoscopic physics and account for the quantum Hall effect 6 ; 10 .

We consider a two dimensional model. The fixed-energy Green’s function $`G^0(𝐱,𝐱^{};E)`$ for a charged particle with mass $`\mu `$ propagating from $`𝐱^{}`$ to $`𝐱`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$\left\{E\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2\mu }+V(𝐱)\right]\right\}G^0(𝐱,𝐱^{};E)=\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}),$$
(1)
where $`V(𝐱)`$ is the scalar potential and $`𝐱`$ is the two dimensional coordinate vector. In the cylindrically symmetric system, the Green’s function can be decomposed as

$$G^0(𝐱,𝐱^{};E)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_m^0(\rho ,\rho ^{};E)\frac{e^{im(\phi \phi ^{})}}{2\pi }$$
(2)
with $`(\rho ,\phi )`$ being the polar coordinates in two dimensional space and $`G_m^0(\rho ,\rho ^{};E)`$ the radial Green’s function. The left-hand side of Eq. (1) can then be cast into

$$\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{E+\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d}{d\rho }\frac{m^2}{\rho ^2}\right)\right]V(\rho )\right\}G_m^0(\rho ,\rho ^{};E)\frac{e^{im(\phi \phi ^{})}}{2\pi }.$$
(3)
For a charged particle affected by a magnetic field, the Green’s function $`G(𝐱,𝐱^{};E)`$ is different from $`G^0(𝐱,𝐱^{};E)`$ by a global NPF 2 ; 7 ; 8

$$G(𝐱,𝐱^{};E)=G^0(𝐱,𝐱^{};E)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}_𝐱^{}^𝐱𝐀(\stackrel{~}{𝐱})𝑑\stackrel{~}{𝐱}\right\}.$$
(4)
Here the vector potential $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ is used to describe the magnetic field. For an infinitely thin tube of finite magnetic flux along the $`z`$-direction, the vector potential can be expressed as

$$𝐀(𝐱)=2g\frac{y\widehat{e}_x+x\widehat{e}_y}{x^2+y^2},$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{e}_x,\widehat{e}_y`$ stand for the unit vector along the $`x,y`$ axis respectively. Introducing the azimuthal angle $`\phi (𝐱)=\mathrm{tan}^1(y/x)`$ around the $`AB`$ tube, the components of the vector potential can be expressed as $`A_i=2g_i\phi (𝐱).`$ The associated magnetic field lines are confined to an infinitely thin tube along the $`z`$-axis,

$$B_3=2gϵ_{3ij}_i_j\phi (𝐱)=4\pi g\delta (𝐱_{}),$$
(6)
where $`𝐱_{}`$ stands for the transverse vector $`𝐱_{}(x,y).`$ Since the magnetic flux through the tube is defined by the integral $`\mathrm{\Phi }=d^2xB_3`$, the coupling constant $`g`$ is related to the magnetic flux by $`g=\mathrm{\Phi }/4\pi `$. By using the expression of $`A_i=2g_i\phi `$, the angular difference between the initial point $`𝐱^{}`$ and the final point $`𝐱`$ in the exponent of the NPF is given by

$$\phi \phi ^{}=_t^{}^t𝑑\tau \dot{\phi }(\tau )=_t^{}^t𝑑\tau \frac{y\dot{x}+x\dot{y}}{x^2+y^2}=_𝐱^{}^𝐱\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐱}\times d\stackrel{~}{𝐱}}{\stackrel{~}{𝐱}^2},$$
(7)
where $`\dot{\phi }=d\phi /d\tau `$. Given two paths $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ connecting $`𝐱^{}`$ and $`𝐱`$, the integral differs by an integer multiple of $`2\pi `$. The winding number is thus given by the contour integral over the closed difference path $`C`$:

$$n=\frac{1}{2\pi }_C\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐱}\times d\stackrel{~}{𝐱}}{\stackrel{~}{𝐱}^2}.$$
(8)
The magnetic interaction is therefore purely nonlocal and topological 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; yang . Its action takes the form $`𝒜_{\mathrm{mag}}=\mathrm{}\mu _02\pi n,`$ where $`\mu _02eg/\mathrm{}c=\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is a dimensionless number with the customarily minus sign. The NPF now becomes $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mu _0(2\pi n+\phi \phi ^{})\right\}`$. The Green’s function $`G_n(\rho ,\rho ^{};E)`$ for a specific winding number $`n`$ can be obtained by converting the summation over $`m`$ in Eq. (3) into an integral over $`z`$ and another summation over $`n`$ by the Poisson’s summation formula (e.g. Ref. 18  p.469)

$$\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f(m)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2\pi nzi}f(z).$$
(9)
So the expression (3) when includes the NPF can be written as

$$𝑑z\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{E+\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d}{d\rho }\frac{z^2}{\rho ^2}\right)\right]V(\rho )\right\}G_z(\rho ,\rho ^{};E)\frac{e^{i(z\mu _0)(\phi +2n\pi \phi ^{})}}{2\pi },$$
(10)
where the superscript $`0`$ in $`G_n^0`$ has been suppressed to denote that the $`AB`$ effect is included. Obviously, the number $`n`$ in the right-hand side is precisely the winding number by which we want to classify the Green’s function. Employing the special case of the Poisson formula $`_n\mathrm{exp}\{ik(\phi +2n\pi \phi ^{})\}=_{m=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\delta (km)\mathrm{exp}\{im(\phi \phi ^{})\},`$ the summation over all indices $`n`$ forces $`z=\mu _0`$ modulo an arbitrary integer number. Thus, we obtain

$$\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{E+\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d}{d\rho }\frac{\left|m+\mu _0\right|^2}{\rho ^2}\right)\right]V(\rho )\right\}G_{\left|m+\mu _0\right|}(\rho ,\rho ^{};E)\frac{e^{im\phi }}{2\pi }.$$
(11)
We see that the influence of the $`AB`$ effect to the radial Green’s function is to replace the integer quantum number $`m`$ with a real one $`\left|m+\mu _0\right|`$ which depends on the magnitude of magnetic flux. Applying the Fourier expansion of $`\delta `$ function,

$$\delta (\phi \phi ^{})=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{2\pi }e^{im(\phi \phi ^{})},$$
(12)
to the rhs of Eq. (1) and defining $`\alpha =\left|m+\mu _0\right|`$ for convenience, we reduce the radial Green’s function to

$$\left\{E+\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d}{d\rho }\frac{\alpha ^2}{\rho ^2}\right)\right]V(\rho )\right\}G_\alpha (\rho ,\rho ^{};E)=\delta (\rho \rho ^{}).$$
(13)
As a result, the corresponding radial wave equation reads

$$\left\{E+\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d}{d\rho }\frac{\alpha ^2}{\rho ^2}\right)\right]V(\rho )\right\}R_{\alpha k}(\rho )=0,$$
(14)
where the subscript set $`(\alpha ,k)`$ with $`k\sqrt{2\mu E}/\mathrm{}`$ denotes the state of scattering particle.

For a short range potential, say $`V(\rho )`$ vanishes as $`\rho >a`$, the exterior solution is the linear combination of 1st and 2nd kind Bessel functions $`J_\alpha (k\rho )`$, and $`N_\alpha (k\rho )`$, and may be given by

$$R_{\alpha k}(\rho )=\sqrt{k}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta _\alpha (k)J_\alpha (k\rho )\mathrm{sin}\delta _\alpha (k)N_\alpha (k\rho )\right],$$
(15)
where $`k=\sqrt{2\mu E}/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\delta _\alpha (k)`$ is the phase shift which can be used to measure the interaction strength of potential. Thus the general solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_k(𝐱)`$ of a scattering particle is given by superposition of the partial waves $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha k}(𝐱)=R_{\alpha k}(\rho )e^{im\phi }`$, which reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_k(𝐱)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{k}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta _\alpha (k)J_\alpha (k\rho )\mathrm{sin}\delta _\alpha (k)N_\alpha (k\rho )\right]e^{im\phi }.$$
(16)
Since it must describe both the incident and the scattered waves at large distance, we naturally expect it to become

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_k(𝐱)\stackrel{\left|𝐱\right|\mathrm{}}{}_{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐤𝐱\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}_C^𝐱𝐀(𝐱^{})𝑑𝐱^{}\right\}\right)+f(\phi )\sqrt{\frac{i}{\rho }}\mathrm{exp}\{ik\rho \},$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐤𝐱\}`$ describes the incident plane wave of a charged particle with momentum $`𝐩=\mu 𝐤`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}()`$ stands for its asymptotic form. The phase modulation of the NPF comes from the fact that the field $`𝐀(𝐱)`$ of $`AB`$ magnetic flux affects the charged particle globally. The subscript $`C`$ in the integral is used to represent the nature of the NPF which depends on the different paths. To find the amplitude $`f(\phi )`$ we first note that the plane wave in Eq. (17) can be expanded in terms of the partial waves

$$e^{i𝐤𝐱}=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^mJ_m(k\rho )e^{im\phi }.$$
(18)
Using the same procedure as in Eqs. (9)-(11), we combine the nonlocal flux effect into the partial wave expansion, and obtain the result

$$e^{i𝐤𝐱}e^{\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}_C^𝐱𝐀(𝐱^{})𝑑𝐱^{}}=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^\alpha J_\alpha (k\rho )e^{im\phi }.$$
(19)
Taking the asymptotic approximations of Bessel functions, and comparing both asymptotic forms of Eqs. (16) and (17), we find the scattering amplitude

$$f(\phi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi k}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i(\delta _\alpha \pi /4)}2i\mathrm{sin}\delta _\alpha e^{im\phi }.$$
(20)
It is noteworthy that if the flux is quantized for integer $`\mu _0`$, the result reduces to the flux-free case lin . In most cases, the total cross section of our major concern is defined by

$$\sigma _t=_\pi ^\pi \left|f(\phi )\right|^2𝑑\phi .$$
(21)
Thus, the partial wave representation of total cross section for a charged particle scattered by a short range potential plus the nonlocal $`AB`$ effect is given by

$$\sigma _t=\frac{4}{k}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _\alpha .$$
(22)
It is obvious that the cross section is completely determined by the scattering phase shifts which are concluded by the potential of different types. Furthermore, when a nonlocal $`AB`$ magnetic flux exists, both the phase shift and the cross section are affected globally. A relation between the total cross section $`\sigma _t`$ and the scattering amplitude is obtained if we set $`\phi =0`$, and then take the imaginary part. It gives $`\sigma _t=\left(2\sqrt{2\pi }/\sqrt{k}\right)Imf(0)`$. This is the optical theorem and is essentially a consequence of the conservation of particles. For the case of identical bosons (fermions) carrying the magnetic flux in two dimensions, the differential cross section is given by $`\sigma (\phi )=\left|f(\phi )\pm f(\phi +\pi )\right|^2`$, where the plus sign is for bosons as usual. The total cross sections are given by the integral $`_\pi ^\pi \sigma (\phi )𝑑\phi `$, and yield

$$\sigma _t(\mathrm{bosons})=\frac{16}{k}\underset{m=\mathrm{},\mathrm{even}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _\alpha ,$$
(23)
and

$$\sigma _t(\mathrm{fermions})=\frac{16}{k}\underset{m=\mathrm{},\mathrm{odd}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _\alpha ,$$
(24)
where the subscript “odd” (“even”) is used to indicate the summation over odd (even) numbers only. As a realization of the nonlocal influence of the $`AB`$ flux on the cross section, let us consider a charged particle scattered by a hard disk potential and a magnetic flux. The potential is given by $`V(\rho )=\mathrm{},`$ for $`\rho a`$, and $`V(\rho )=0,`$ for $`\rho a`$. Using the boundary condition of the wave function $`R_{\alpha k}(a^+)=0`$, we find that the phase shift is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _\alpha (k)=\frac{J_\alpha (ka)}{N_\alpha (ka)},$$
(25)
where $`J_\alpha (z)`$ ($`N_\alpha (z))`$ is the Bessel function of first (second) kind. Substituting this expression into Eq. (22), the total cross-section is found to be

$$\sigma _t=\frac{4}{k}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{J_\alpha ^2(ka)}{J_\alpha ^2(ka)+N_\alpha ^2(ka)}.$$
(26)
Note that the result will reduce to the pure disk case if the flux is quantized for $`\mu _0=n\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. In this case the low energy limit $`k0`$ (assuming the radius $`a`$ is finite) can be found by the asymptotic expansion of Bessel functions, and only index $`m=0`$ survives. So the phase shift becomes

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _0(k)=J_0(ka)/N_0(ka)\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{ln}(ka/2)}.$$
(27)
This implies the total cross section at the low energy limit is

$$\sigma _t\frac{8a}{\pi }\frac{1}{ka\mathrm{ln}(ka)}\mathrm{}\text{.}$$
(28)
At the high energy limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, we may use the formulas of Bessel functions of the large argument to turn Eq. (26) into

$$\sigma _t=\frac{4}{k}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}^2\left[ka\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\pi }{2}\right]$$

$$=\underset{ka\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{4}{k}\left\{\underset{m=[ka],\mathrm{even}}{\overset{[ka]}{}}\mathrm{cos}^2\left(ka\frac{\pi }{4}\right)+\underset{m=[ka],\mathrm{odd}}{\overset{[ka]}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(ka\frac{\pi }{4}\right)\right\}=4a.$$
(29)
The value $`4a`$ explains that the quantum result does not go over to the actual classical result $`\sigma _t2a`$ even though the wave length of de Broglie is much less than $`a`$. The numerical result for $`\alpha `$ with noninteger value is plotted in Fig. 1, where the normalization $`\sigma _0`$ is chosen as $`4a`$. There are two main results: (1) The cross section $`\sigma _t`$ is drastically suppressed at the low energy limit (equivalently, the short range potential), say $`ka1`$, at quantized magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(2n+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ periodicity as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. (2) A more interesting consideration is given by the scattering of identical particles simulated by the hard disks carrying the magnetic flux. In Fig. 3, we plot the total cross sections of identical bosons carrying the magnetic flux via Eq. (23). The outcome shows that the cross section approaches zero ($`\sigma _t0`$) when the value $`ka0`$ if the magnetic flux is at quantized value $`(2n+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. On the contrary, if the magnetic flux is equal to $`2n\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, the cross section becomes maximum and the effect of magnetic flux disappears. Since the decay rate of a current $`𝐣`$ traveling a distance $`𝐱`$ is given by $`𝐣(𝐱)=𝐣(0)\mathrm{exp}(\sigma _tn_0𝐱)`$, where $`n_0`$ is the number of the scattering center, the total cross section $`\sigma _t0`$ at the low energy limit at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(2n+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ means that the resistance $`R0`$ and results in the persistence of current. This phenomenon is consistent with the picture of composite boson in fractional quantum Hall states located at the filling factor with odd denominator such as $`\nu =1/3`$. The composite boson is pictured by an electron carrying the quantized magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(2n+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. It dictates the quantized Hall states which exhibit the perfect conduction in the longitudinal direction, i.e. the resistance originated from the collisions between composite bosons disappear 10 . The global structure of the total cross section is given by $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ periodicity as shown in Fig. 4. In the case of identical fermions, the total cross section $`\sigma _t0`$ is found at the quantized magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=2n\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ as shown in Fig. 5. Such effect is consistent with the model of composite fermion in the quantum Hall state located at the filling factor with even denominator $`\nu =5/2`$. The composite fermion is described by an electron carrying the quantized magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=2n\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. In Ref. 20 , a quantitative explanation of quantum Hall state at the filling factor $`\nu =5/2`$ is given by the existence of a shorter range potential between the composite fermions than the case of the filling factor $`\nu =1/2`$. Here we can see that, in Fig. 5, a sufficiently short range potential, say $`ka<0.5`$, between the fermions carrying the quantized magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=2n\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ will cause negligible cross section and thus agree with the composite fermions model. Similar to the boson case, the oscillating period is given by $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ as shown in Fig. 6.

In this paper, we study the partial wave method of scattering theory for a short range potential and a magnetic flux. As an illustration, the hard disk potential plus a magnetic flux is calculated in detail. The nonlocal influence of the magnetic flux is discussed. Since the nonlocal effect of magnetic flux on the charged particle is universal, the effect should be general in similar systems. Although we assume that the potential must be $`V(\rho )=0`$ for $`\rho >a`$, we do not specify the radius $`a`$ beyond which $`V(\rho )=0`$. Hence we expect that the method given in this paper should be valid for a very general potential as long as the potential decreases rapidly enough when $`r\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, though in our discussion the magnetic flux is placed at the origin, it can be moved to the other points as long as it still locates in the potential region. This is due to the fact that the final outcome just relates to the flux via homotopy classes. We hope the discussions would be helpful in understanding mesoscopic systems and strongly correlated systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank the referee for his comments, professor Pi-Guan Luan for helpful discussions, Professor Jang-Yu Hsu, and Dr. Y.N. Chen for reading the manuscript.