text:
# Photon-assisted Fano Resonance and Corresponding Shot-Noise in a Quantum Dot

## Abstract

We have studied the Fano resonance in photon-assisted transport in a quantum dot and calculated both the coherent current and spectral density of shot noise. It is predicted, for the first time, that the shape of Fano profile will also appear in satellite peaks. It is found that the variations of Fano profiles with the strengths of nonresonant transmissions are not synchronous in absorption and emission sidebands. The effect of interference on photon-assisted pumped current has been also investigated. We further predict the current and spectral density of shot noise as a function of the phase, which exhibits an intrinsic property of resonant and nonresonant channels in the structures.

The phenomena of photon-assisted tunneling (PAT) have been intensively studied in a variety of mesoscopic systems. The main feature of PAT is that the monochromatic radiation induces additional tunneling processes when electrons exchange energy by absorbing or emitting photons, and the conductance displays a strong nonlinearity and develops sidebandskouwenhoven2 ; kouwenhoven1 . However, the previous studies of PAT have not considered the possibility of symmetric RT being violated in structures where the nonresonant transmission is taken part in the tunnelings between two reservoirs. Recently, Göres et al.gores  and Zacharia et al.zacharia  demonstrated in their experiments the RT processes involving the interference with the nonresonant tunneling (NRT) channel. The phenomenon has stimulated much experimentalmadhavan  and theoreticalstone ; schoeller  interest. The coexisting of two possible tunneling channels (resonant and nonresonant), interfering with each other, through the single-electron transistor shows prominent perspectives for the Fano effectfano , i.e., asymmetric line shapes (ALS) in conductance. Because the interference between energetically accessible RT channels and NRT channel has not been investigated. In this sense, it is interesting to ask whether the interference exhibits ALS on satellites peaks and what the characteristic features are manifested in PAT.

On the other hand, the spectral density of current noise, especially its nonequilibrium aspect (so-called shot noise), reveals very useful information hidden in current measurementsbuttiker1 ; iannaccone . The study on photon-assisted shot noise (PASN) is developed very fast in recent years. Lesovik and Levitovlesovik  modelled an open single connected loop threaded by a time-varying Aharonov-Bohm flux to study the flux-controlled interference. This offers a clever way of affecting its dynamics and enables one to study PASN. PAT on nonequilibrium current fluctuation has been observed by Schoelkopf et al. experimentallyschoelkopf . To our interest, here, a new degree of freedom is provided by the employment of NRT channel in tunneling processes. The correlation between RT and NRT processes is high in time for transmitting electrons. The investigation of spectral density of shot noise in PAT has twofold significations. On the one hand, the study of this quantity can be used as a cross-check for the analysis of the interference of the charge transferring, in the case of an existence of continuum level degenerate in energy with a discrete resonant level. On the other hand, the investigation on the zero bias PASN, in which the time average current vanishes, enables us to clarify intrinsic effect of discrete charges in interference with Fano resonance.

In this Letter, we present the theoretical analysis of Fano resonance in PAT and demonstrate those interesting features for the ALS on satellite sidebands. Our analysis is based on a small configuration so called a quantum dot (QD) connected to two electronic reservoirs via tunneling barriers. To capture the essential physics of photon-assisted Fano resonance we consider the simplest case with noninteracting electrons in a single-level QD. The NRT channel is incorporated by a bridge channel as a kind of direct tunneling between the continuum states of two reservoirs, which can be thought as a point-like-contact added to the configuration. This Letter consists of two parts: First, we study the Fano effect in PAT and reveal the characteristics of ALS in peaks located on satellites; Second, we investigate the spectral density of shot noise in photon-assisted Fano resonance.

The system is described by a tunneling Hamiltonian $`H=H_{leads}+H_d+H_{ldr}+H_{lr}`$, in which $`H_{leads}=_{k\alpha }ϵ_{k\alpha }(t)c_{k\alpha }^{}c_{k\alpha }`$, $`H_d=ϵ_d(t)d^{}d`$, $`H_{ldr}=_{k\alpha }(t_{k\alpha }c_{k\alpha }^{}d+t_{k\alpha }^{}d^{}c_{k\alpha })`$, and $`H_{lr}=_{kk^{}}(v_{kk^{}}c_{kl}^{}c_{k^{}r}+v_{kk^{}}^{}c_{kl}^{}c_{k^{}r})`$, where $`c_{k\alpha }^{}`$ ($`c_{k\alpha }`$) creates (annihilates) an electron of momentum $`k`$ in reservoir $`\alpha `$ ($`=l`$, $`r`$); $`d^{}`$ ($`d`$) is the creation (annihilation) operator for an electron in QD; $`t_{k\alpha }`$ are tunneling coefficients that describe the tunneling between the reservoirs $`\alpha `$ and the quantum dot, while $`v_{kk^{}}`$ describes the NRT between the reservoirs. The Hamiltonian is time dependent due to energy shifts, $`ϵ_{k\alpha }(t)=ϵ_{k\alpha }+eV_\alpha \mathrm{cos}\omega _1t`$, of the reservoirs and illuminated QD by irradiation, $`ϵ_d(t)=ϵ_d+eV_\omega \mathrm{cos}\omega _2t`$. Using formulism of time-dependent Green’s functionswingreen  the current flowed out the left lead is $`I_l(t)=(2e/\mathrm{})Re[_{kk^{}}v_{kk^{}}G_{kr,k^{}l}^<(t,t)+_kt_{kl}G_{d,kl}^<(t,t)]`$, where $`G_{d,kl}^<`$ and $`G_{kr,k^{}l}^<`$ are Keldysh Green functions. In the current the term involving $`G_{kr,k^{}l}^<`$ contains the NRT and its interference with RT while the term involving $`G_{d,kl}^<`$ contains the RT and its interference with NRT. These nonequilibrium Green functions can be evaluated by employing the Keldysh technique and be expressed in terms of Green function $`G_{dd}`$ at QD and the bare Green functions in the leads. The connection among them in a set of Dyson-like equations includes all possibilities of scattering tunneling and interference. For simplicity, we neglect the energy dependence of various couplings and write the intrinsic linewidth in terms of the density of states, $`\rho _\alpha `$, in the leads $`\alpha `$ under the wide linewidth approximation, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =2\pi \rho _\alpha |t_\alpha |^2`$ ($`\alpha =l,r`$) and $`W=(2\pi )^2\rho _l\rho _r|v|^2`$. Besides, it should be emphasized to point out that there is a mix coupling among the left and right barriers, and the bridge channel over the two reservoirs, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(2\pi )^2\rho _l\rho _rt_lv^{}t_r^{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_rW}e^{i\phi }`$. It is found that the combination of $`t_lv^{}t_r^{}`$ can be regarded as an existence of intrinsic accesses constructed by RT and NRT channels and gives rise to a phase dependence. The phase $`\phi `$ manifests its contribution throughout the following calculations and shows an Aharonov-Bohm-like effect. The time average current is obtained as $`I=(e/\pi \mathrm{})𝑑ϵ_{mn}f_{mn}(ϵ)T_{mn}(ϵ)`$ with a definition of $`f_{mn}(ϵ)=J_n^2(u_\omega )[f_l(ϵ)J_m^2(u_l)f_r(ϵ)J_m^2(u_r)]`$, where $`J_n(u_\beta )`$ is the $`n`$th-order Bessel function of $`u_\beta =eV_\beta /\mathrm{}\omega _\beta `$ ($`\beta =\omega `$, $`l`$ and $`r`$) and $`f_\alpha (ϵ)`$ is the Fermi distribution function of electrons in the reservoir $`\alpha `$. $`T_{mn}`$ describes the transmissions of the tunneling through both RT and NRT channels, the interference between them, and all multiple scattering on the dot and the contacts in the processes of absorption and emission of photons. The analytic formulation is given by

$$T_{mn}(ϵ)=\frac{T_bϵ_{mn}^2+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2\mathrm{\Omega }+ϵ_{mn}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2\sqrt{T_b\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}\phi }{(ϵ_{mn}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{T_b\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}\phi )^2+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2}$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_{mn}=ϵϵ_d+m\omega _1n\omega _2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_l+\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }T_b/2(1\sqrt{1T_b})`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=4\mathrm{\Gamma }_l\mathrm{\Gamma }_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. We leave $`T_b=W/(1+W/4)^2`$ as a turnable parameter, so-called transparency of NRT channel, in our following discussions. This is equivalent in controlling the NRT strength. It is a transmission coefficient in the quantum point contactyeyiti . Ref.yeyiti  has discussed in details that $`T_b`$ varies between zero and one as a function of $`W`$. In eq.(1) the renormalized levels are given by $`E_{mn}=2[ϵ_dm\omega _1+n\omega _2\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{T_b\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}\phi /4]/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and show satellite resonant levels offset from the main nonlinearity by the shifts corresponding to absorption and emission of photons. If we express them in terms of resonant scattering phase shifts $`E_{mn}=cot\delta _{res}^{mn}`$, it is predicted that the sidebands (with the resonant scattering phase shifts in different integer multiples of $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$) are still remained and but with a shift due to a self energy renormalized the resonance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{T_b\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}\phi /4`$. According to the discussion of Hofstetter et al.schoeller , eq.(1) can be written as a generalized Fano form with an asymmetric parameter, $`q=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }(1T_b)/T_b}\mathrm{cos}\phi `$ which is independent of PAT. The common Breit-Wigner line shapes of PAT is recovered at $`q\mathrm{}`$ ($`T_b=0`$), whereas $`q0`$ ($`T_b=1`$) yields a symmetric antiresonance. ALS would be explicitly noted at the finite value of $`q`$. Because of resonant accesses depending on exchange energy of photons, it is predicted that a Fano zero associated with each PAT resonance results in the dips (ALS) on the satellite peaks of current characteristics.

Fig.1 displays the current at zero temperature as the function of $`eV_g`$, the gate voltage, where the resonant level in QD has been taken as an energy reference, i.e., $`ϵ_d=0`$. Throughout this Letter, the energy is measured in unit of $`\omega _1`$ ($`e=\mathrm{}=1`$) and the symmetric tunneling barriers ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l=\mathrm{\Gamma }_r=0.1\omega _1`$) are considered. From Fig.1a we find that the satellite peaks are produced at $`eV_g=n\mathrm{}\omega `$ as expected. The amplitude of any given sideband is a non-monotonic function of photon flux in the form of a nontrivial dependence on the Bessel function $`J_n^2(u_\alpha )`$ and the interference. Fano line shapes on the sidebands imply that the PAT accesses interfere with the NRT channel. The influence of the Fano resonance has been also represented in Fig.1a by running $`T_b`$ over the regime from the weak NRT to the one that NRT contribution to conductance is comparable in size to the RT component. Increasing $`T_b`$ the current $`T_{mn}`$ makes the line shape run away from Breit-Wigner line shape ($`T_b=0`$) and exhibits a Breit-Wigner dip in the limit when NRT dominates the tunneling ($`T_b=1`$). The dips on the line shapes located on satellites saturate at the same finite values symmetrically at the limitation attributed in the NRT channel. It is interesting to notice that the unsynchronized asymmetrizations on the satellite peaks located two sides of main resonance are visible in varying $`T_b`$. Such unsynchronous dips in the absorption and emission of photons can been explained as follows: The scattering cross-section of tunneling is proportional to a function of sum $`m`$ over $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\delta _{res}^m+\delta )`$schoeller , where $`\delta `$ is a nonresonant phase shift related to the asymmetric parameter $`q`$, i.e., $`q=cot\delta `$. As pointed above the resonant scattering phase shifts $`\delta _{res}^m`$ are different for the processes of absorption and emission of photons. Thus the definite value $`T_b`$ ( thus $`\delta `$) results in the different values in $`\delta _{res}^m+\delta `$ for the accesses of emitting photons (positive $`m`$) and absorbing photons (negative $`m`$). Alternatively, eq.(1) is a sum of two even and one odd functions of $`ϵ`$ around its poles. The part of odd function asymmetrizes the line shape and leads to Fano profile. The third term of the numerator in eq. (1) indicates that the processes of absorption and emission of photons affect the Fano profiles in a different weight. It is implicit in the variations of ALS with the strengths of nonresonant transmissions are not synchronous in absorption and emission sidebands. This can be understood as that the tunneling electrons will acquire different coherent phases from the stimulated absorption and emission respectively, which would be exhibited in the interference between RT and NRT channels.

It is well known that an asymmetric illumination in the reservoirs reveals photon-assisted pumping. Without NRT, Kouwenhoven et al.kouwenhoven1  has studied the photon-assisted pumping at zero dc bias voltage. We set $`V_r=0`$ and a finite $`V_l`$. The photon absorption occurs only at the left reservoir, which leads to the net current to the right when the RT level above the Fermi level of reservoirs while reverses when RT level below the Fermi level of the reservoirs. Without NRT the pumped current changes sign when the gate voltage is swept such that the RT level moves cross the Fermi level of reservoirs. However, it is not truth when NRT is joined. These processes interfere with NRT shows a wide region of current to the right. The pumped current occurs over a width corresponding to the photon energy. It is noticed that the pumping current is reversed at $`T_b=1`$ with respect to the case of $`T_b=0`$. In Fig.1b we have represented several possibly pumped current profiles with different values of $`T_b`$. Note that except for the limiting situations $`T_b=0`$ and $`T_b=1`$, the profiles are asymmetric. There are two zero-current points instead of only one for the case of limiting situations. This behavior originates from an incomplete suppression due to the interference near the degeneracy point of single-particle energies. As one can see in eq. (1), current indicates the Fano line shape is phase dependent and a periodic function of $`\phi `$ with period 2$`\pi `$. The symmetry in $`\phi `$ and $`\phi `$ refers to as “phase locking”, which is an exact property of two-terminal setupsbuttiker1 . Fig.2 demonstrates the current-phase relation for $`T_b=0.25`$ and $`1.00`$. From Fig.2a it is evident to note the property that there is a symmetry $`I(\phi ,eV_g)`$ and $`I(\phi \pi ,eV_g)`$, which follows from the symmetries in electron and hole. It is also interesting to notice that the sidebands are smeared away at $`\phi =\pi /2`$ (see in Fig.2b) because the Fano parameter vanishes at $`\phi =\pi /2`$. It can been seen that we have the usual FAT resonance for $`T_b=0`$ and the disappearance of interference for $`T_b=1`$ at $`\phi =\pi /2`$.

To learn more about the influence offered by the interference with NRT we study the spectral density of shot noise $`S(\omega )`$ and the effect in affecting its dynamics. It is defined as $`S(\omega )=d(tt^{})\mathrm{exp}[i\omega (tt^{})]<\delta \widehat{I}(t)\delta \widehat{I}(t^{})+\delta \widehat{I}(t^{})\delta \widehat{I}(t)>`$, where $`\delta \widehat{I}(t)=\widehat{I}(t)<\widehat{I}(t)>`$ is the fluctuation in current. In general the noise in PAT oscillates in time with the frequencies of external microwave radiations. $`<\delta \widehat{I}_\alpha (t)\delta \widehat{I}_\beta (t^{})>`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta =l,r`$) does not need to have the same values for different pairs of $`\alpha \beta `$ in the presence of external irradiation. We calculate $`S(\omega )=_{\alpha \beta }S_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ instead of $`S_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$. Because of $`<\widehat{I}_l(t)>=<\widehat{I}_r(t)>`$, $`S(\omega )`$ calculated here relates to the zero-point current fluctuation. Using the technique of nonequilibrium Green function as done in calculation of current it makes analytical studies possible. However, the calculation is more complicated because of the correlation among the electrons in the difference processes taking into account. Taking the notions $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{mn}=\omega ϵϵ_d+m\omega _1n\omega _2`$ and $`_\beta (\omega ,ϵ,ϵ^{})=(1f_\beta (ϵ))\delta (\omega ϵ^{}+ϵ)f_\beta (ϵ)\delta (\omega ϵ^{}ϵ)`$, we obtain the spectral density of shot noise, $`S(\omega )=(e^2/\pi \mathrm{}^2)_{\alpha mn}𝑑ϵf_\alpha (ϵ)J_m^2(u_\alpha )J_n^2(u_d)[s_\alpha ^{mn}(\omega ,ϵ)+_\beta 𝑑ϵ^{}J_m^2(u_\beta )J_n^2(u_d)_\beta (\omega ,ϵ,ϵ^{})s_{\alpha \beta }^{mn}(\omega ,ϵ,ϵ^{})]`$, where

$$s_\alpha ^{mn}(\omega ,ϵ)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{mn}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{T_b\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}\phi )^2+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2}$$
(2)
$`s_{\alpha \beta }^{mn}(\omega ,ϵ,ϵ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha +\frac{1}{4}W\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{\alpha }}+(\frac{1}{2})^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{T_b\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{sin}\phi ]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\beta }{(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{mn}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{T_b\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}\phi )^2+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2}}`$ (3)
The dc and zero-frequency spectral density of shot noise at a finite dc bias and zero temperature as the function of gate voltage is plotted in Fig.3. It contains a new information as compared with the current in the evolution of the transparency of NRT, $`T_b`$. By analyzing the asymmetric variation of shapes with varying the transparency, $`T_b`$, it is found that the spectral density of shot noise recovers its original form at $`T_b=1`$ as that at $`T_b=0`$ and reverses shape at $`T_b=0.5`$. The result is different from what has been seen in the current.

The phase-dependence has been illustrated in Fig.4. This is a robust feature which survives for all Fano resonant tunneling in a structure of QD. It is an unambiguous signature of the fact of Aharonov-Bohm-like oscillation. The difference between here and the description of Lesovik and Levitovlesovik  is that the phase dependence is not an external flux but the intrinsic existence. The shot noise remains the constant at $`\phi =\pi /2`$ and $`T_b=1`$ in Fig.4b indicates the interference smearing over fluctuation and leaving noise as a constant background. This is agreement with that we have observed in the current in Fig.2b. The fact reveals the symmetry of phase dependence is the intrinsic property and is independent of the absorption and emission of photons.

Before making adieu we would like to avail ourselves of a little space to face an interesting question: what the photon-assisted signature in the shot noise may be and what effect does nonresonant channel give risen in? To this we plot the spectral density of shot noise at zero bias voltage in Fig.5. Because no time-average current exists when the ac voltage drop is the same for both reservoirskouwenhoven1  the fluctuations on the current are completely induced by the external radiations. From the plot of shot noise in Fig.5, the predicted modulation respect to the absorbtion and emission of photons does arise. It is seen that a continuing increase of transparency of NRT channel, the varying on the top of peaks in the zero-bias spectral density of shot noise does also reveal the asymmetric Fano resonance. It indicates the possibilities of relaxation among these states excited by absorbtion and emission of photons. An electron absorbs a photon or emits a photon and hops to a energetically accessible above the Fermi level in the leads. The interference with the forward and backward possibility in the nonresonant channel leads to the ALS in the zero-bias shot noise. The phase dependence of zero-bias shot noise also shows the fact that the interference smears over fluctuation and leaves noise as a constant background.

In summary, we have demonstrated that the shape of Fano profile appears in peaks located on absorption and emission sidebands. The asymmetrization of peaks on those satellites, corresponding to absorbing and emitting photons respectively, are not synchronous in varying the strengths of nonresonant transmissions. Both the current and spectral density of shot noise depend on a phase which is essentially a sore of intrinsic phase difference between the energetically accessible RT and NRT channels.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge the support from NNSFC and NSF of Guangdong Province under Grant No. 90103027, 10274069, and 011151.


format: text

text:
# Velocity of particles in Doubly Special Relativity

## 1 Introduction

There is a rapidly growing interest in a research programme, which might be called “Quantum Special Relativity”, i.e. a class of theories of kinematics that differ in their predictions from that of Special Relativity in the regime of ultra-high energies. These possible differences might be understood as traces of still unknown Quantum Gravity theory present even in the regime of negligible gravitational field. It is feasible that predictions of such generalizations of Special Relativity, like dependence of the speed of massless particles on momentum they carry, might be experimentally tested in the near future experiments.

Two alternative classes of “Quantum Special Relativity” have been recently attracting attention. In one, one argues that Lorentz invariance is broken at high energies due to string , loop-quantum gravity  effects, or due to existence of the cosmological preferred frame . In the second, proposed by Amelino-Camelia , , called Doubly Special Relativity (DSR), one assumes that the ten dimensional algebra of physical symmetries (rotations, boosts, and translations) is still present, but is deformed in a way so as to possess two observer-independent scales. In this paper we will concentrate on this second possibility only.

The construction of the first specific model of DSR, called DSR1, presented in  and  borrowed a lot from the earlier investigations in quantum Hopf deformations of Poincaré algebra, the so-called $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra (see e.g., , ). It turned out however that there exist another DSR models: the first one, called nowadays DSR2 was formulated by Magueijo and Smolin , and it was soon realized that there exist a whole class of DSR theories , .

In the majority of the (especially early) literature devoted to DSR, Doubly Special Relativity is defined only as a theory based on energy-momentum sector. This is not what we understand by DSR in this paper. In our view, a DSR theory is defined by a set of commutators describing the whole of the phase space of the system. There are two systematic and equivalent ways of deriving such a set in any particular model111Some other methods of deriving consistent phase space may exist, of course. We are not aware however of any nontrivial alternative to the procedure we make use of.. The first is based on the Hopf algebra structure that can be built on the energy–momentum algebra, and the use of the so called Heisenberg double construction , , . Equivalently, one can get the same phase space by making use of the geometric, de Sitter picture of DSR, , .

Doubly Special Relativity is a theory of particle kinematics, and the proper understanding of the concept of velocity in such a theory is of course an important step towards full understanding of it. The first attempt to analyze the notion of velocity has been made already in the early days of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré theory in , from the DSR perspective this problem has been investigated, among others, in , , , , .

The starting point of our investigations reported here consists of two major assumptions: that velocity is defined as the Poisson bracket of position with deformed relativistic hamiltonian (see also ), and that to compute this bracket one must take into account the nontrivial phase space structure of DSR theories. We show that in all DSR theories four velocities transform as standard Lorentz vectors, and that the three velocities of massless particles equal one. This general statement will be justified in Section 3; before turning to that, we present our method on the specific example of DSR1.

## 2 Particle velocity in DSR1

Before starting our investigations let us state clearly what our assumptions are. We define four velocity as the Poisson bracket, based on a DSR phase space structure, of positions with an appropriate hamiltonian. Let us explain why we decided to use Poisson brackets instead of commutators, usually employed in the DSR literature. The reason is quite simple: the use of commutators implies that the relevant objects are operators acting on some Hilbert space. Since no investigations of such operators’ properties (functional analysis) has been performed so far, working with the commutator algebra is equivalent to phrasing results in terms of Poisson brackets. Since we will make use of the expression for three-velocity as a function of four velocities $`v^i=\dot{x}^i/\dot{x}^0`$ whose meaning for $`x^0`$ being an operator is not clear, it is just safer to work with Poisson brackets. For this reason we will confirm our discussion to classical particles and not quantum matter waves. In our investigations in this section we will also postulate a particular form of relativistic hamiltonian. We will argue that such form is natural in the next section devoted to general properties shared by all DSR theories.

In all the DSR theories (contrary to the statements that can be sometimes found in the literature), the Lorentz algebra of rotations $`M_i`$ and boosts $`N_i`$ is exactly the same as in Special Relativity222Let us stress again that $`[,]`$ denotes the Poisson bracket and not the commutator.

$$[M_i,M_j]=ϵ_{ijk}M_k,[M_i,N_j]=ϵ_{ijk}N_k,$$

$$[N_i,N_j]=ϵ_{ijk}M_k,$$
(1)
In the DSR1 theory the momenta transform under action of boosts as follows

$$[N_i,p_j]=\delta _{ij}(\frac{\kappa }{2}(1e^{2p_0/\kappa })+\frac{1}{2\kappa }\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2})\frac{1}{\kappa }p_ip_j,$$
(2)
and

$$[N_i,p_0]=p_i.$$
(3)
The first Casimir of this theory equals

$$𝒞=\left(2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{p_0}{2\kappa }\right)\right)^2\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{p_0/\kappa }=m^2.$$
(4)
Let us now turn to description of the phase space of DSR1. As for all DSR theories we have

$$[x_0,x_i]=\frac{1}{\kappa }x_i,[x_i,x_j]=0.$$
(5)
As shown in  there are infinitely many phase spaces compatible with the DSR1 boost transformations (3), (4) and the brackets (5). Here we will describe only the two most simple ones for whose the cross brackets take the following form

$$[p_0,x_0]=1,[p_i,x_0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }p_i,$$

$$[p_i,x_j]=\delta _{ij}e^{2p_0/\kappa }\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\left(\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2}\delta _{ij}^{}2p_ip_j\right),[p_0,x_i]=\frac{2}{\kappa }p_i$$
(6)
or, following ,

$$[p_0,x_0]=1,[p_i,x_0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }p_i,[p_i,x_j]=\delta _{ij},[p_0,x_i]=0.$$
(7)
We choose the hamiltonian to be

$$=\kappa ^2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{p_0}{\kappa }\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2}e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}.$$
(8)
This hamiltonian has the large $`\kappa `$ limit

$$\kappa ^2+\frac{1}{2}(p_0^2\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2})+\mathrm{}$$

i.e., it reduces in this limit to the standard hamiltonian of relativistic particle (up to the irrelevant constant shift). Let us now define the four velocities in the standard way as the bracket

$$u_0\dot{x}_0=[x_0,],u_i\dot{x}_i=[x_i,]$$
(9)
In calculating the brackets in (9) one should carefully take care of the nontrivial phase space structure of DSR1 (6) or (7) (in accordance with the scheme presented in )

$$[x_0,]\frac{}{p_0}[x_0,p_0]+\frac{}{p_i}[x_0,p_i],$$

$$[x_k,]\frac{}{p_0}[x_k,p_0]+\frac{}{p_i}[x_k,p_i].$$
(10)
The second set of Hamilton equations is quite simple

$$\dot{p}_\mu =0$$
(11)
because in all DSR theories the hamiltonian depends on momenta only, and momenta have vanishing bracket among themselves. Notice that this property guarantees that in DSR free motion is uniform. One should note at this point that for this reason it seems that the so called “twisted phase spaces”, investigated recently in , which would lead to non-uniform motion of free particles, are likely not to be physical.

It is easy to derive the expression for four velocity, following our general prescription (10). We find

$`u_0`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2\kappa }}e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}`$
$`u_i`$ $`=`$ $`p_ie^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}`$ (12)
in the case of phase space (6) and

$`u_0`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2\kappa }}e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}`$
$`u_i`$ $`=`$ $`p_ie^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}`$ (13)
for the phase space (7)333In this particular case our result agrees with the one reported in , .. We see that the four velocities differ by the overall sign, but that in both cases the expression for three-velocity is exactly the same and reads

$$v_i=\frac{u_i}{u_0}=p_i\left(\frac{\kappa }{2}\left(1e^{2p_0/\kappa }\right)+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2\kappa }\right)^1$$
(14)
Using the expansion of the mass-shell condition for massless particles (cf. eq. (4))

$$0=\kappa ^2(1e^{p_0/\kappa })^2\stackrel{}{p}^2$$
(15)
we find

$$v_i^{(m=0)}=\frac{p_i}{\kappa }\left(1e^{p_0/\kappa }\right)^1.$$
(16)
Using (15) again we find that the speed of massless particles

$$v^{(m=0)}=\left|v_i^{(m=0)}\right|=1$$
(17)
as in Special Relativity. Of course, there are deviations from Special Relativistic results in the case of massive particles. Indeed, in the massive case we have with the help of (4)

$$v_i^{(m)}=p_i\left[\kappa \left(1e^{p_0/\kappa }\right)\frac{m^2e^{p_0/\kappa }}{2\kappa }\right]^1$$
(18)
Note that the speed-of-light of a massive particle, i.e., the maximal speed of massive particle carrying infinite energy equals again

$$v^{(\mathrm{})}=1$$
(19)
because $`p_0=\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`|\stackrel{}{p}|=\kappa `$, as it follows simply from (4).

It is worth noticing that if one derives the transformation rules for four velocities (12), (13) under action of boosts, using expressions (2), (3), one finds that they transform as standard Lorentz four vectors of Special Relativity. This is not an accidental property of DSR1, in fact it holds for all DSR theories. Let us turn therefore to general formulation and properties of such theories.

## 3 Velocity in DSR theories – generalities

The results derived in the previous section turn out to be valid not only for DSR1, but in fact for all DSR theories. In order to see that let us recall the geometric, de Sitter space formulation of the DSR theories presented in . The starting point here is a five dimensional manifold of Minkowski signature

$$ds^2=g^{AB}d\eta _Ad\eta _B=d\eta _0^2+d\eta _i^2+d\eta _4^2.$$
(20)
In this space the four dimensional de Sitter space is imbedded by

$$\eta _0^2+\eta _1^2+\eta _2^2+\eta _3^2+\eta _4^2=\kappa ^2,$$
(21)
We split the ten dimensional algebra of isometries of de Sitter space (21) into the six dimensional Lorentz algebra (1) and the remainder, which we identify with positions $`x_\mu `$ satisfying (5). The remaining brackets are

$$[M_i,\eta _j]=ϵ_{ijk}\eta _k,[M_i,\eta _0]=0,[M_i,\eta _4]=0$$
(22)
$$[N_i,\eta _j]=\delta _{ij}\eta _0,[N_i,\eta _0]=\eta _i,[N_i,\eta _4]=0$$
(23)
$$[x_0,\eta _4]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _0,[x_0,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _4,[x_0,\eta _i]=0,$$
(24)
$$[x_i,\eta _4]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _i,[x_i,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _i,[x_i,\eta _j]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\delta _{ij}(\eta _0\eta _4),$$
(25)
The main result of , based on the previous investigations reported in  and  is that any DSR theory can be represented as a particular coordinate system on the de Sitter space (21), i.e., the mapping from the space of physical momenta $`p_\mu `$ to $`\eta _A`$ satisfying (21). For example, in the case of the DSR1 theories with phase spaces (6), (7) this mapping takes the form

$`\eta _0`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left(\kappa \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2\kappa }}e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}\right)`$
$`\eta _i`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left(p_ie^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}\right)`$
$`\eta _4`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2\kappa }}e^{\frac{p_0}{\kappa }}.`$ (26)
Let us observe now that in view of eqs. (21) and (23) $`\kappa \eta _4`$ is the most natural candidate for relativistic hamiltonian. Indeed it is by construction Lorentz-invariant, and reduces to the standard relativistic particle hamiltonian in the large $`\kappa `$ limit. Indeed, using the fact that for $`p_\mu `$ small compared to $`\kappa `$, in any DSR theory $`\eta _\mu p_\mu +O(1/\kappa )`$ we have

$$\kappa \eta _4=\kappa ^2\sqrt{1+\frac{p_0^2\stackrel{}{p}^2}{\kappa ^2}}\kappa ^2+\frac{1}{2}(p_0^2\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2})+O\left(\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\right)$$
(27)
Then it follows from eqs. (24), (25) that $`\eta _\mu =[x_\mu ,\kappa \eta _4]`$ can be identified with four velocities $`u_\mu `$. The Lorentz transformations of four velocities are then given by eq. (23) and are with those of Special Relativity. Moreover, since

$$u_0^2\stackrel{}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}𝒞=m^2$$
(28)
by the standard argument the three velocity equals $`v_i=u_i/u_0`$ and the speed of massless particle equals $`1`$. Let us stress here once again that this result is DSR model independent, though, of course, the relation between three velocity of massive particles and energy they carry depends on a particular DSR model one uses.

Thus if in the time-of-flight experiment (see e.g.,  for recent review), will measure time gap between arrivals of photons emitted from a distant source, and carrying different energies, this would falsify the construction of the DSR models presented above.

Note finally that as the result of eq. (28) and the definition of three velocity as $`v_i=u_i/u_0`$, the rule of adding the latter in any DSR theory is identical with the standard rule of Special Relativity. It is however an open question if this can be consistently extended to the rule of addition of momenta, following the considerations of Lukierski and Nowicki  and Judes and Visser .

## 4 Comments and concluding remarks

The main result of our investigations reported here is that if the phase space of DSR theories is constructed in the way suggested by geometric picture of de Sitter space, the speed of massless particle equals 1. There is a number of simple observations one can make. First, in the scheme adopted here, for any DSR theory the velocity is just

$$v_i=\frac{u_i}{u_0}=\frac{\eta _i(p)}{\eta _0(p)}$$
(29)
which provides the velocity–momentum relation for an arbitrary DSR theory, since in any DSR theory the variables $`\eta _\mu `$ are functions of momenta, given by its definition. It follows also that the boost parameter $`\xi `$ is related to velocity in exactly the same way as in the Special Relativity

$$\mathrm{tanh}\xi =v$$
(30)
This can be easily seen by realizing that the brackets (23) are equivalent to the equations (for boost acting in $`3`$rd direction, say)

$$\frac{d\eta _3}{d\xi }=\eta _0,\frac{d\eta _0}{d\xi }=\eta _3,$$
(31)
from which (30) immediately follows. To obtain the corresponding equation for dependence of momenta $`p_\mu `$ on rapidity in a particular DSR theory, defined by a particular functions $`\eta _A(p_\mu )`$, one uses eq. (31) and the Leibnitz rule. But this does not change the relation (30) where the right hand side can be taken a given function of momenta.

It is interesting to compare our result with the calculation of the group velocity of wave packets presented in . In this paper the authors perform their computations using essentially only the noncommutative structure of $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time (5), the particular form of non-commutative differential calculus, and a natural ordering of plane waves. Their result, that the group velocity $`v^{(g)}=p_0/p`$ (where the derivative is taken on the mass-shell, i.e. assuming that eq. (4) holds,) should be therefore valid for all DSR theories. The clear disagreement of their result with the one presented in this paper deserves further studies, since it seems to indicates that in the framework of DSR the behavior of matter waves may differ from that of particles. Specifically, this discrepancy means that either naively constructed wave packets could not represent point particles, so that the latter are represented by a non-linear combination of plane waves, or that one of these two notions (linear wave packet and/or point particles) just does not make physically sense in the DSR theories.

To conclude let us stress that the final judgement on possible dependence of velocity on energy will be made by near future experiments. We would like to note however that if it turns out that our result is correct, i.e., if in the DSR theories we still have to do (as in Special Relativity) with universal speed of physical signals carried by massless particles, this will constitute an important information, making it easier to formulate Doubly Special Relativity operationally.

## Acknowledgement

We would like to thank J. Lukierski for his valuable comments on the draft of this papers.


text:
# Magnetic ordering of Mn sublattice, dense Kondo lattice behavior of Ce in (RPd3)8Mn (R = La, Ce)

## I Introduction:

The RPd3 compounds have the AuCu3-type crystal structure with R and Pd atoms occupying the corners (1a) and face centers (3c) of the cubic unit cell, respectively. A unique way of alloying RPd3 (R = La to Lu) compounds was reported by Dhar et al., when they observed that smaller p-block atoms like boron could be incorporated interstitially in the RPd3 crystal lattice Dhar et al. (1981a).The smaller boron atoms occupy the body-center (1b) position in the RPd3 unit cell forming a defect pervoskite-type structure with formula RPd3Bx (0 $`<x<`$ 1). It was later found that silicon could also be incorporated in the RPd3 unit cell up to x $``$ 0.3 Malik et al. (1982). Alloying with boron and silicon resulted in the expansion of the lattice and changed drastically the valence and hence the magnetic properties of CePd3 and EuPd3Dhar et al. (1981a, b); Malik et al. (1982); Dhar et al. (1982, 1984). Briefly, cerium ions changed from valence fluctuating state in CePd3 to trivalent state in CePd3Bx for x $`>`$ 0.12, while the lattice expansion forced the europium ions to change from the trivalent state in EuPd3 to the valence fluctuating state in EuPd3Bx alloys, with possible charge ordering in EuPd3B.

An interesting extension of the above-mentioned interstitial alloying has recently been reported by Gordon and DiSalvo Gordon and DiSalvo (1996). They found that alloying CePd3 with an appropriate amount of Sb leads to the formation of a cubic superstructure, (CePd3)8Sb, closely related to the AuCu3-type structure of CePd3. The large sized Sb atoms deform the Pd octahedra, such that the available 1b sites in the CePd3 lattice are occupied by Sb atoms only in a regular pattern forming a simple cubic sublattice with near neighbor Sb$``$Sb separation slightly more than twice the lattice parameter of the parent CePd3 unit cell. In the superstructure the Ce atom remains coordinated by 12 Pd atoms and the Ce$``$Ce separation is increased by 2 to 3% over its value in CePd3. A rigorous discussion of the superstructure can be found in Gordon and DiSalvo (1996); Singh and Dhar (2000). Later, it was found that the superstructure (CePd3)8M is also formed for other p-block elements M = Ga, In, Sn, Pb and Bi, and for (LaPd3)8In Gordon et al. (1996). (CePd3)8M compounds order magnetically below 10 K in contrast to the Pauli paramagnetic, valence fluctuating ground state in CePd3, and they exhibit heavy-fermion like enhanced low temperature electronic specific heat coefficient, $`\gamma `$Cho et al. (1998); Jones et al. (1999); Mitra et al. (1999a). Further investigations showed that (CePd3)8M (M = Al and Ge) also form, order magnetically below 10 K and exhibit a dense Kondo lattice behavior Jones et al. (1999); Mitra et al. (1999b); Singh and Dhar (2000). Jones et al. also tried to synthesise (CePd3)8M for M = Zn and Te Jones et al. (1999). Though their powder x-ray diffraction patterns showed the signature of superstructure formation, there were some doubts about the homogeneity and the exact stoichiometry of the samples. The case for M = Zn is interesting in the sense that Zn is not a p–block element and it motivated us to search for other atoms in the 3d series that might lead to superstructure formation.

In the present work, we report for the first time the formation of ‘dilute-Mn’ ternary compounds (RPd3)8Mn for R = La and Ce. The word ‘dilute’ emphasizes the fact that the Mn concentration in these compounds is low (about few molar percent) and yet the Mn ions form a periodic lattice with unusually large nearest neighbor Mn$``$Mn separation allowing localization of the 3d moments. Recently such ‘dilute-Mn’ compounds have attracted considerable attention. Negative colossal magnetoresistance has been reported in the single crystals of Zintl compounds Eu14MnSb11 and Eu14MnBi11, despite antiferromagnetic ordering in the later compound Chan et al. (1998a). In Yb14MnSb11 (where Yb ions are divalent and hence non-magnetic) the localized Mn3+ moments are coupled via conduction electrons and order ferromagnetically at 53 K Chan et al. (1998b); Fisher et al. (1999). Yb14MnBi11 exhibits two magnetic transitions: a ferromagnetic transition at 58 K followed by a second transition at 28 K Chan et al. (1998b). It was pointed out in ref. 14 that similar ‘dilute’ intermetallic compounds may be a good starting point to find 3d-Kondo lattice systems, analogous to the well known and extensively studied 4f-Kondo lattice/heavy fermion systems. We find that in (RPd3)8Mn (R = La, Ce) the nearest neighbor Mn$``$Mn separation is unusually large $`8.5`$ Å. In (LaPd3)8Mn the Mn ions are in a localized 2+ valence state and order antiferromagnetically below $``$50 K. In (CePd3)8Mn the Ce ions form a dense Kondo lattice and do not order magnetically at least down to 1.5 K. However, the Mn sublattice orders ferromagnetically near 35 K. In contrast the alloys RPd3Mnx (x = 0.03 and 0.06), also synthesized for the first time, have a spin glass ground state due to the random occupation of 1b sites by the Mn ions in the RPd3 lattice.

## II Experiment

Initially compounds of the composition (RPd3)8Mn for R = La and Ce were made by the standard technique of arc melting in an inert atmosphere of argon. First an ingot of RPd3 was melted and then Mn added to it by gently focusing the arc on the pellet of RPd3 so that Mn, which is volatile, is not directly heated. The button of the ternary alloy was flipped over and re-melted several times to ensure homogenization. The initial and final weights of the pellets are practically the same and hence there is no loss of Mn. We believe that the success of arc melting technique for making these samples is partially due to the fact that the molar percentage fraction of Mn is low ($`3`$ %). Later, LaPd3Mnx ($`x`$ = 0.03, 0.06) and CePd3Mnx ($`x`$ = 0.02, 0.06) were also made by the same method. The samples were checked for their phase purity by the standard powder x-ray diffraction technique and optical micrography. The resistance between 1.5$``$300 K was measured by the four-probe DC method on a rectangular parallelepiped piece of uniform cross-section. Contacts with the sample were made using gold wire and silver paste. The following method was used to remove the uncertainty in the value of resistivity arising due to the error associated with the measurement of distance between the voltage probes. The two current and one voltage probes were fixed to the sample, the room temperature resistance (R) of the sample was then measured as a function of distance by moving the second voltage probe in steps of $`\delta L`$ = 0.05mm. The slope of the R vs $`L+\delta L`$ (where $`L`$ is the initial distance between the moving and fixed voltage probes; the slope is independent of the choice of L) is used to normalize the value of resistivity obtained from silver contact measurements. The heat capacity was measured by using the semi-adiabatic, heat pulse method. Magnetization as a function of temperature and field was recorded by using VSM (Oxford Instruments) and SQUID (Quantum Design) magnetometers.

## III Results and discussions

### III.1 Powder X-ray diffraction patterns

A representative powder x-ray diffraction pattern of (LaPd3)8Mn obtained using Cu-K$`\alpha `$ radiations is shown in Fig. 1. The crystal structure was refined using the Rietveld refinement program FULLPROF ful  and an output of such a fitting is also presented in Fig. 1. The Bragg peaks for the powder pattern of (LaPd3)8Mn, generated by the FULLPROF, are shown as two sets of vertical bars in Fig. 1. While the bigger and thicker bars correspond to the reflections one would expect from a face centered cubic LaPd3 lattice, the smaller bars (labelled as satellite peaks in the figure) correspond to additional low intensity satellite peaks arising due to the periodic occupation of 1b sites by the bigger Mn atoms resulting in the formation of a cubic superstructure of size about twice the size of the LaPd3 unit cell. The powder diffraction pattern of (CePd3)8Mn, similarly, showed the formation of cubic superstructure. The lattice parameters *a* of (LaPd3)8Mn and (CePd3)8Mn are 8.466 and 8.415 Å respectively, which is also the nearest neighbor Mn$``$Mn separation in the two compounds. The powder diffraction patterns of RPd3Mnx ($`x=0.03`$ and 0.06 for R = La and 0.02 and 0.06 for R = Ce) alloys, on the other hand, are similar to those of RPd3Bx alloys: characterized by the absence of satellite peaks and a slight lattice expansion over the parent RPd3 lattice. We find that the superstructure in (RPd3)8Mn (R = La and Ce) is sensitive to the heat treatment. For example, annealing the (CePd3)8Mn samples at 900 C diminishes the low intensity satellite peaks and gives rise to new peaks, indicating a degradation of the phase by the heat treatment. All the data reported in this work were taken on the as-cast samples.

### III.2 (LaPd3)8Mn

LaPd3 is diamagnetic at room temperature and shows a nearly temperature independent magnetic susceptibility Scoboria et al. (1979). The inverse molar susceptibility, $`\chi ^1`$, of (LaPd3)8Mn measured in an applied field of 3 kOe is shown in Fig. 2. Between 100 and 300 K the data can be fitted to a modified Curie-Weiss expression: $`\chi =\chi _0`$ \+ C/(T - $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p)`$ where C is the Curie constant and $`\chi _0`$ is the temperature-independent contribution to the total magnetic susceptibility and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p`$ is the paramagnetic Curie temperature. The values of the best-fit parameters are: $`\mu _{eff}`$ = 5.9 $`\mu _B`$/f.u. (derived from C), $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p`$ = 52.1 K and $`\chi _0`$ = $``$0.003 emu/mol. The $`\mu _{eff}`$ is comparable to the theoretical value of 5.92 $`\mu _B`$ for Mn2+ (S = 5/2) ion and suggest that the Mn ions in this compound are in a 3d5 electronic configuration. The negative $`\chi _0`$ (about 20% of the total susceptibility at 300 K) arises from the the diamagnetic contribution of the LaPd3 network and is comparable to the susceptibility of (LaPd3)8In which is reported to be $`1.06\times 10^3`$ emu/mol at 293 K Gordon et al. (1996). The susceptibility of (LaPd3)8Mn measured in a field of 1 kOe is shown in the inset of Fig. 2. At low temperatures the susceptibility shows a peak at 48 K (T1) indicating an antiferromagnetic transition. In addition there is a smaller peak at 23 K (T2) indicative of a second phase transition.

Fig. 3a shows that the magnetization of (LaPd3)8Mn measured in zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) mode in an applied field of 100 Oe is practically the same. Further, we do not observe any frequency dependence of the AC susceptibility measured at 1, 9 and 99 Hz (Fig. 3b). These data show conclusively that the peaks in the magnetization arise due to the long range magnetic order and not due to any spin-glass-type freezing of the Mn moments. The magnetization, \[M(T)/H\]H, of (LaPd3)8Mn, measured in several applied fields below 60 K is depicted in Fig. 4. \[M(T)/H\]H in the ordered state exhibits very unusual behavior in relatively low applied fields. Noteworthy is the shift of T2-peak to lower temperatures: above $`3`$ kOe the T2-peak shifts rapidly to lower temperatures and disappears below 1.8 K in an applied field of $`8.25`$ kOe. The magnitude of M/H, on the other hand, increases with the increase in the magnetic field.

The isothermal magnetization \[M(H)\]T measured at several temperatures between 2K and 50K is shown in Fig. 5. For each T, \[M(H)\]T is measured by cooling the sample from above 60 K to the desired temperature in a nominal zero field. \[M(H)\]1.8K undergoes a sharp metamagnetic transition in a ‘critical field’ of $``$ 8.25 kOe, at which the T2-peak of magnetization disappears as seen in Fig. 4. At higher temperatures the metamagnetic transition becomes less sharper and the corresponding field at which the matamagnetic transition occurs also decreases. The linearity of the magnetization at 50 K characterizes the response in the paramagnetic state. \[M(H)\]2K (shown as inset in Fig. 5 up to 120 kOe) has a tendency towards saturation attaining a value of $`\mu _s`$ = 4.6 $`\mu _B`$/Mn in 120 kOe (close to the theoretical value of 5$`\mu _B`$ for Mn2+ ion). From the values obtained for $`\mu _{eff}`$ and $`\mu _s`$ we conclude that the 3d state of the Mn ions in (LaPd3)8Mn has a localized character in contrast to the usual band like character of Mn 3d state in the intermetallics.

It may be noticed that though $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p`$ obtained from the high temperature Curie-Weiss behavior of the susceptibility data is positive, indicative of ferromagnetic correlations, the peak in $`\chi `$ at T1 and the nature of isothermal magnetization suggest antiferromagnetic ordering. The data presented in Fig. 4 and 5 shows that the antiferromagnetic state is not robust. We speculate that the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions are competing in this compound. It is worthy of mention here that the Mn sublattice in (CePd3)8Mn orders ferromagnetically (see below) and our preliminary investigations reveal ferromagnetic ground state in (LaPd2.75Rh0.25)8Mn and (LaPd2.75Ag0.25)8Mn. Thus it appears that the nature of magnetic ordering is rather sensitively dependent on slight variations in lattice parameter, conduction electron concentration, etc.

It is interesting to note here that the metamagnetic transitions observed in (LaPd3)8Mn is qualitatively similar to that observed in bilayer itinerant metamagnet Sr3Ru2O7 where the quantum critical fluctuations associated with the metamagnetism at very low temperatures has been shown to give rise to a non-Fermi liquid behavior in magnetotransport Perry et al. (2001); Grigera et al. (2001). Therefore, it will be very interesting and pertinent to investigate transport and magnetic properties of (LaPd3)8Mn at very low temperatures and in fields close to the ‘critical field’ $`8.25`$ kOe: the field at which the T2-peak in magnetization disappears below 1.8 K or the isothermal magnetization exhibits metamagnetic transition at 1.8 K. We present here our preliminary results on the magnetotransport measurements of (LaPd3)8Mn down to 1.5 K.

The zero-field resistivity, $`\rho `$(H = 0, T), data of (LaPd3)8Mn between 1.5$``$300 K are shown in the inset of Fig. 6. A rather low residual resistivity of $`7\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm and a moderately good residual resistivity ratio of about 4.5 is observed. At high temperatures $`\rho `$(0, T) decreases almost linearly with temperature down to 100 K. The magnetic transition at T1 is clearly reflected by a distinct change in the slope around 48 K below which $`\rho `$(0, T) drops precipitously due to the loss of spin-disorder scattering. Around T2 = 23 K the zero-field resistivity is smooth with no discernible anomaly. The magnetoresistivty (MR) measured at few selected fields (Fig. 6) shows interesting features, which correlate nicely with the changes in magnetization in applied fields. The MR, measured in applied fields of 7 and 10 kOe, is positive between the temperatures corresponding to T1 and T2-peaks in the low field magnetization, in accordance with the positive MR typically observed in the antiferromagnetic state. However, at lower temperatures the MR changes sign and exhibits a field dependent peak, the peak position T2 coinciding with that in the DC magnetization at the same value of the applied field. The low temperature peak in MR vanishes for fields above $``$ 8.25 kOe within the temperature range of our measurements, thus mimicking the corresponding behavior seen in the DC magnetization. Thus, while the zero-field resistivity is apparently featureless at T2 = 23 K, the in-field resistivity changes distinctly at (field dependent) T2 pointing at the bulk nature of changes taking place at T2.

The in-field resistivity measured at selected fields are plotted in Fig. 7a as a function of T2. The zero-field resistivity and the resistivity in applied fields greater than the ‘critical field’ (namely 8.5, 10 and 15 kOe) follows a T2 variation between 1.5 and 10 K (T2 behavior in zero-field persists up to nearly 15 K). The data in 10 and 15 kOe are nearly coincident with the 8.5 kOe data and are, therefore, not shown in the figure. Evidently, for applied fields less than the ‘critical field’ (namely 5, 7.8 and 8 kOe) a similar quadratic dependence of resistivity is not observed at low temperatures. However, at temperatures above the field dependent T2-peak the data nearly coincides with the data taken in 8.5 kOe and thus follow a T2 behavior. MR at a fixed temperature of 1.6 K was measured up to 60 kOe and is shown in Fig. 7b. MR drops precipitously to $`10\%`$ at $``$ 8.25 kOe , correlating with the metamagnetic transition (Fig. 5). In Sr2Ru3O7 also the metamagnetism is similarly observed in the MR Perry et al. (2001). In higher fields the MR becomes less negative attaining a value of $`3\%`$ at 60 kOe. It would be interesting to study the thermal variation of the magnetoresistivity in magnetic field near the ‘critical field’ at very low temperatures for possible non-Fermi liquid behavior.

The heat capacity, C, of (LaPd3)8Mn, shown in Fig. 8 increases monotonically with temperature up to 60 K. No discernible anomaly is seen at T1 and T2 where the Mn sub-lattice undergoes transitions. Recalling that the heat capacity at a bulk magnetic transition for spin S = 1/2 shows a peak of 25 J/mol K in the mean-field approximation, the lack of anomaly at first appears puzzling. However, it should be noticed that in (LaPd3)8Mn the Mn ions are just about 3 molar percent. Therefore, the total heat capacity at high temperatures is predominantly due to the phonons. The background lattice heat capacity masks the anomaly expected at the magnetic transitions near T1 and T2. The heat capacity of iso-structural non-magnetic analogue (LaPd3)8Ga is also shown in Fig. 8. Assuming that the conduction electron density of states and the phonon contributions in (LaPd3)8Mn are exactly the same as in iso-structural (LaPd3)8Ga, we have extracted the excess magnetic contribution, Cmag, by subtracting the two heat capacities, which is shown in the upper inset of Fig. 8. The relatively poor quality of Cmag is easy to understand. Typically, our heat capacity set up has accuracy to within 3$``$4%. Subtracting the heat capacities of the two compounds will give large statistical errors ($``$ 10$``$20 J/mol K) at high temperatures (C = 250 J/mol K at $``$ 50 K). A peak in Cmag centered at 48 K ( = T1) is indeed seen though no apparent anomaly is observed at T2 as in the zero-field resistivity. In the low temperature region (3 $`<`$ T $`<`$6 K), C/T vs. T2 of (LaPd3)8Mn shows linear behavior (see lower inset of Fig. 8) with least square fitted values of $`\gamma `$ = 57.8$`\pm `$1.6 mJ/mol K2 and $`\beta `$ = 6.75$`\pm `$0.1 mJ/mol K4, where $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ have their usual meaning. For antiferromagnets the spin wave contribution varies as T3 and should not therefore affect the value of $`\gamma `$. For the non-magnetic analogue (LaPd3)8Ga $`\gamma `$ = 2.3$`\pm `$2.1 mJ/ mol K2 which is comparable to 2.21 mJ/mol K2 in (LaPd3)8In reported by Cho et al. Cho et al. (1998). The data between 3 and 10 K were least square fitted by including additional T4 and T6 terms in the expression for C/T. The values of $`\gamma `$ thus obtained are 61.2$`\pm `$5.3 and 5.4$`\pm `$3.3 mJ/mol K2 for Mn and Ga compounds respectively. Within the limits of error the two sets of values are comparable for each compound. The value of $`\gamma `$ for (LaPd3)8Mn is an order of magnitude larger than the corresponding value for (LaPd3)8Ga and shows that there is an enhancement in the electronic density of states at the Fermi level in the Mn compound.

### III.3 LaPd3Mnx ($`x=0.03,0.06`$)

It was inferred above from the powder x-ray diffraction pattern of that the Mn ions in LaPd3Mnx ($`x`$ = 0.03 and 0.06) are randomly distributed over the 1b sites in LaPd3 lattice. A random distribution of Mn-ions coupled via RKKY exchange will give rise to a spin-glass type of freezing of the Mn moments as observed, for example, in the canonical spin-glasses like Cu$``$Mn, Au$``$Fe, etc Mydosh (1993). Indeed, our data show convincingly the spin glass state for $`x`$ = 0.03 and 0.06 in LaPd3Mnx. Fig. 9a shows the susceptibility of LaPd3Mn0.03 measured in an applied field of 50 Oe both in ZFC and FC mode. In the ZFC mode the susceptibility exhibits a peak at 2.8 K below which large thermomagnetic irreversibility is observed between ZFC and FC data. These features are typically associated with a spin-glass freezing of the magnetic moments. This is further corroborated by the frequency dependent peak position of the ac-susceptibility measured at 1, 9 and 999 Hz as shown in Fig. 9b. The peak in the AC-$`\chi `$ shifts to higher temperatures with the increase in the frequency of the AC excitation. The corresponding data for LaPd3Mn0.06 are shown in Fig. 10a and 10b. A similar behavior is seen but with a freezing temperature (Tf) of 5.5 K. The ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Tf/ Tf\[$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$($`\mathrm{log}\omega `$)\], a quantitative measure of the frequency-dependent peak shift, for $`x`$ = 0.03 and 0.06 is 0.010 and 0.0098 respectively, which compares well with the values for the canonical spin glasses (0.005 and 0.01 for Cu$``$Mn and Au$``$Fe, respectively). This ratio offers a good criterion for distinguishing a canonical spin glass from a spin-glass-like material, superparamagnets for example, where it is often larger by about an order of magnitude Mydosh (1993). The inverse molar susceptibility of LaPd3Mn0.03 and LaPd3Mn0.06 measured up to 300 K is shown in Fig. 11. As above, the data are least squares fitted to the modified Curie-Weiss expression in the range 100 to 300 K. The values of the best-fit parameters are: $`\mu _{eff}`$ = 5.85 $`\mu _B`$/Mn and 5.70 $`\mu _B`$/Mn, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p`$ = 15.8 K and 32.3 K and $`\chi _0`$ = $`0.0002`$ emu/mol and $`0.0002`$ emu/mol respectively. $`\mu _{eff}`$ in both the alloys is comparable to the theoretical value of 5.92 $`\mu _B`$ for Mn2+ (S = 5/2) ion. Thus the magnetic moments of the Mn-ions in these two alloys freeze randomly at Tf due to the random RKKY interaction.

In canoniocal spin-glasses like $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐮}`$$``$Mn the magnetic contribution to the heat capacity, Cmag, exhibits a broad maximum above Tf and gradually falls off at increasing temperatures Mydosh (1993). Fig. 12a and 12b shows the heat capacity of LaPd3Mnx ($`x`$ = 0.03, 0.06). The heat capacity of non-magnetic reference LaPd3 is also displayed in the figure. The insets show Cmag obtained by subtracting the heat capacity of LaPd3 from LaPd3Mnx alloys. Extraction of Cmag form the total heat capacity is an arduous task particularly at high temperatures where the errors associated with the absolute values of the total heat capacity may exceed the magnetic contribution from the Mn-moments. For $`x`$ = 0.03 a broad maximum of height 120 mJ/mol K in Cmag is observed at 4.5 K giving additional evidence of a spin glass freezing of Mn moments in LaPd3Mn0.03. For $`x`$ = 0.06, Cmag has large scatter above 15 K nonetheless indicates a broad peak centered at 16 K.

### III.4 (CePd3)8Mn

CePd3 is an archetypal valence fluctuating compound with enhanced Pauli-paramagnetic ground state ($`\chi `$ 10-3 emu/mol and $`\gamma `$ = 50 mJ/mol K2 as T $``$ 0 K) Gardner et al. (1972); Besnus et al. (1983); Holland-Moritz et al. (1977, 1982). Fig. 13a shows the ZFC and the FC magnetization of (CePd3)8Mn in an applied field of 1 kOe. The magnetization increases sharply below 50 K like in a ferromagnetic transition and exhibits a broad peak at 20 K in the ZFC mode. There is a pronounced difference between the ZFC and FC magnetization below the peak temperature. The field dependence of magnetization at 2.8 K, shown in the inset of Fig. 13c, is characterized by both hysteresis and a high coercive field of 6 kOe. Néel has shown that the magnetization M(T) of a ferromagnet below its Curie temperature, Tc, in applied field h much smaller than the coercive field hc(T) is approximately given by the relation M(T) $``$ ms(T) h2/h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{c}{}^{}`$(T), where ms(T) is the saturation magnetization Néel (1949). Therefore, if below Tc the anisotropy or the coercive field builds up at a rate much faster than ms(T) then M(T) should show a peak at some temperature. We believe the broad peak at 20 K in ZFC data arises due to the appreciable coercivity/anisotropy in this ferromagnetic material. The FC data in such cases typically show a ferromagnetic saturation below the peak but we find that in (CePd3)8Mn the FC magnetization decreases by about 5 % below 12 K; the reasons for this are not clear to us. The susceptibility of (CePd3)8Mn measured in an applied field of 5 kOe is shown in Fig. 13b. The data above 75 K can be satisfactorily fitted to the modified Curie-Weiss law. The best-fit parameters obtained from such a fitting are: $`\chi _0`$ = 0.002 emu/f.u., $`\mu _{eff}^{observed}`$ = 7.15 $`\mu _B`$/f.u. and $`\theta _p=+38.7`$ K. The positive value of $`\theta _p`$ indicates ferromagnetic interactions. Indeed the Mn sublattice in (CePd3)8Mn orders ferromagnetically around 32 K (refer to Arott plot analysis and heat capacity section below). To deduce the effective magnetic moment per Ce ion it is reasonable to assume that the valence of Mn in (CePd3)8Mn is same as observed in the isomorphous (LaPd3)8Mn. We further assume that in the paramagnetic regime the contribution of Ce and Mn to the observed effective magnetic moment is simply additive and, therefore, it can be expressed as: $`\mu _{eff}^{observed}`$ = $`\sqrt{8(\mu _{eff}^{Ce})^2+(\mu _{eff}^{Mn})^2}`$, where $`\mu _{eff}^{Ce}`$ and $`\mu _{eff}^{Mn}`$ are effective magnetic moments per Ce and Mn ions respectively in (CePd3)8Mn. Since in (LaPd3)8Mn the effective magnetic moment per Mn ion is $`5.9\mu _B`$, using this relation we get $`\mu _{eff}^{Ce}=2.42\mu _B`$ per Ce ion, which is close to the theoretical value of 2.54 $`\mu _B`$ for a free Ce3+ ion. Indicating that the valence of Ce in (CePd3)8Mn is close to +3.

Fig. 14a shows \[M(H)\]T at various temperatures. In Fig.14b we have replotted the data as H/M vs. M2 at T = 20, 30, 40 and 45 K. Such plots, known as Arrott plots, are useful in determining the Curie temperature of a ferromagnet. For a ferromagnet the Arrott plot at Tc should pass through the origin while the plots for T $`<`$ TC will cut the horizontal axis at a non-zero value, which is the square of the spontaneous magnetization of the ferromagnet (Ms). The plots for T $`>`$ TC do not intercept the horizontal axis, since the spontaneous magnetization is zero. Following the standard procedure (see for example Ref. 26) Süllow et al. (2000), the high-field (higher than 5 kOe) data for each temperature is fitted to a fourth order polynomial in M2 which is extrapolated to determine M$`{}_{s}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. We find Ms at 40 K is zero while it has a non-zero value at 30 K, indicating that the ferromagnetic ordering temperature of (CePd3)8Mn lies between these two temperatures. Isothermal magnetization data at few more temperatures between 30 and 40 K are required to locate TC exactly. The magnetization at 2.8 K does not saturate even in 120 kOe and its field variation suggests a component varying almost linearly with the field. We believe that the linear component arises from the contribution due to the Ce ions which are in the paramagnetic state down to, at least, 1.5 K (see below, heat capacity and resistivity data). We thus attribute the ferromagnetic transition in (CePd3)8Mn to the Mn sublattice. The magnetization at 2.8 K in 120 kOe is 6.4 $`\mu _B`$/f.u. and exceeds the corresponding value in (LaPd3)8Mn substantially due to the (paramagnetic) contribution from the Ce sub-lattice.

The resistivity ($`\rho `$) of (CePd3)8Mn (Fig. 15) is about four times larger than that of (LaPd3)8Mn at 300 K and its thermal variation is qualitatively similar to that seen in the dense Kondo lattice compounds. The relatively higher $`\rho `$ in (CePd3)8Mn arises from the incoherent Kondo spin disorder scattering. The peak at 16 K is not due to any phase transition as both the heat capacity (see below) and magnetization data do not show any anomaly at that temperature, but it is due to the transition from the incoherent to coherent Kondo scattering regime as seen, for example, in archetypal Kondo lattice compounds CeAl3, CeCu6Stewart (1984) and also in Kondo lattice antiferromagnet (CePd3)8M (M = Ga, Ge and Al) Mitra et al. (1999b); Gordon et al. (1996); Singh and Dhar (2000). The resistivity does not apparently exhibit any anomaly at TC $``$ 35 K because its large negative temperature coefficient masks the decrease in resistivity occurring due to the ordering of Mn ions (3 mol-percent). It is interesting to recall that the resistivity of CePd3 also shows a negative temperature coefficient and peaks around 130 K Besnus et al. (1983). Qualitatively the peak temperature varies inversely with the characteristic Kondo/spin fluctuation temperature. Therefore, there is a significant reduction of the Kondo temperature in (CePd3)8Mn. However, compared to Kondo-lattices (CePd3)8M (M = Ga, Ge, In, Sn, Sb Bi and Al) Cho et al. (1998); Mitra et al. (1999a); Jones et al. (1999); Singh and Dhar (2000) which all order antiferromagnetically between 1.5 and 8 K, the RKKY interaction is not strong enough to induce magnetic ordering in (CePd3)8Mn.

The heat capacity of (CePd3)8Mn though comparable to that of the La analogue is however larger in the entire temperature range of 1.5 K to 60 K. This is understandable as the predominant (at higher temperatures) lattice contribution will be nearly similar in the two compounds (the atomic masses of La and Ce differ by less than 1 %) but there will be an additional 4f-derived contribution, C4f due to the Ce-ions in (CePd3)8Mn. The magnetic contribution to the heat capacity, Cmag (which is predominantly C4f considering that the Mn concentration is low), was derived by subtracting the heat capacity of (LaPd3)8Ga from (CePd3)8Mn. Cmag displayed in Fig. 16a exhibit a peak at $``$32 K which we attribute to the ferromagnetic ordering of the Mn sub-lattice. The peak position of Cmag is in agreement with the estimate of the Curie-temperature derived from Arrott plots. Inset of Fig. 16 shows Cmag/T vs. T2 below 5 K. A linear extrapolation to T = 0 K gives an intercept of 2.2 J/mol K2 (275 mJ/Ce-mol K2). In the case of Ce compounds the screening of Ce magnetic moments by the Kondo interaction results in an enhanced coefficient of the electronic specific heat $`\gamma `$. The large value of Cmag/T at T = 0 K shows that (CePd3)8Mn is a dense Kondo lattice. We may recall that $`\gamma `$ of CePd3 is $``$ 50mJ/mol K2. The hybridization of Ce 4f-states with the conduction electrons is reduced in the ternary compound thereby leading to a narrow band density of states and an enhanced effective mass. There is no signature of the magnetic ordering of Ce ions in (CePd3)8Mn unlike (CePd3)8M (M = Ga, Ge, In, Sn, Sb Bi and Al) Mitra et al. (1999b); Gordon et al. (1996); Singh and Dhar (2000) where the heat capacity exhibits huge peaks between 1.5$``$10 K.

### III.5 CePd3Mnx (x = 0.02, 0.06)

The ZFC and FC magnetization data of CePd3Mn0.06 in 100 Oe and the AC susceptibility measured at 9, 99 and 999 Hz are displayed in Fig. 17a and 17b respectively. A peak in the DC magnetization at 3.9 K with a pronounced thermomagnetic irreversibility below the peak temperature and a frequency dependent peak shift in the AC susceptibility confirms the occurrence of a spin-glass freezing in CePd3Mn0.06 at 3.9 K. Since there are two magnetic entities (Ce and Mn) the magnetization data do not distinguish which one of these is getting frozen at 3.9 K. To clarify the situation we measured the heat capacity of CePd3Mn0.06 down to 1.5 K as shown in the inset of Fig. 18. The heat capacity data are featureless (with the exception of a minor anomaly at 6.2 K due to the presence of cerium oxide in the sample). The magnetic contribution, Cmag, is obtained as Cmag(T) = \[C$`_{(CePd_3Mn_{0.06})}`$(T) - C$`_{(LaPd_3)}`$(T)\] and is shown in the main figure (Fig. 18). A broad peak in Cmag centered at T $`2`$Tf, with a peak height of $`1`$ J/mol K corroborates the spin glass freezing. A rough estimate of the magnetic entropy released up to 20 K yields Smag $`1.9`$ J/mol K. This value is nearly $`1/3`$ of what one would expect from the spin-glass freezing of one mol of Ce ions. These two features: absence of a broad peak in the C and Smag $`1.9`$ J/mol K rule out the spin-glass freezing of the Ce ions at 3.9 K. To conclude, in CePd3Mn0.06 the Mn ions freeze in a spin-glass state below 3.9 K, while the Ce ions remain paramagnetic down to the lowest temperature measurements.

The resistivity of CePd3Mn0.02 and CePd3Mn0.06 is shown in Fig. 15. For x = 0.02 the resistivity is qualitatively similar to that of CePd3, the peak having shifted from 130 K in CePd3 to $``$ 100 K indicating that the addition of Mn at this level does not influence the electronic state of Ce-ions to any considerable extent. But for x = 0.06 which further expands the lattice, the resistivity shows a negative d$`\rho `$/dT down to the lowest temperature of 1.5 K. For single ion Kondo effect the magnetic part of the resistivity saturates as T2 at low temperatures for T $`<<`$ TK, where TK is the Kondo temperature. In CePd3Ga0.05, for example, the T2 dependence extends up to T = 20 K Kaczorowski and Koźlik (1999). However our low temperature data do not follow a similar behavior. For example between 1.7 - 4 K a least square fitting of the data to the expression $`\rho =\rho _0`$ \- ATn gives $`\rho _0`$= 344.9 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm, A =0.065$`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm K-2 and n =1.7. Absence of T2 behavior in the low temperature resistivity of anomalous f-electron systems has been interpreted to arise from a non-Fermi liquid ground state. Since the low temperature resistivity in CePd3Mn0.06 includes the contribution arising from the spin glass freezing of the Mn moments at 3.9 K we cannot infer conclusively a non-Fermi liquid ground state in this alloy.

## IV Summary

We have synthesized and studied the magnetic, thermodynamic and magnetotransport properties of two new interstitial ‘dilute-Mn’ compounds (LaPd3)8Mn and (CePd3)8Mn. Interstitial alloys CePd3Mnx ($`x=0.02,0.06`$) and LaPd3Mnx ($`x=0.03,0.06`$) were also studied to bring out the differences in the properties of the compounds and the alloys. The Mn ions form a regular sub-lattice in the compounds and undergo long range magnetic ordering, while they are randomly distributed in the alloys and show spin glass behavior. The peculiarity of the antiferromagnetic state in (LaPd3)8Mn is reflected in the occurrence of two peaks (at 48 and 23 K) in its low field magnetization and an unusually strong field-induced shift of the lower peak (T2) towards T = 0 K at relatively low fields. Concomitantly, a metamagnetic transition is seen in the magnetization in the ordered state, which is also clearly reflected in the magnetotransport data. The magnetic ordering due to Mn-sub-lattice is ferromagnetic in (CePd3)8Mn, though the Ce sub-lattice shows dense Kondo lattice behavior and remains paramagnetic at least down to 1.5 K. It would be interesting to probe the magnetic behavior of (LaPd3)8Mn in the vicinity of the metamagnetic field at very low temperatures.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Dr. Pratap Raychaudhuri for useful discussions.

The observed (cross) and fitted (solid line) powder x-ray diffraction pattern of (LaPd3)8Mn. The vertical bars indicate the position of the Bragg peaks.

The inverse molar susceptibilities $`\chi ^1`$ and $`(\chi \chi _0)^1`$ of (LaPd3)8Mn as a function of temperature. $`\chi _0`$ is estimated by fitting the susceptibility data to the modified Curie-Weiss expression (refer text for details). The line is the best-fit of the data to the modified Curie-Weiss expression.

The magnetic susceptibility of (LaPd3)8Mn as a function of temperature: (a) DC susceptibility ($`\chi `$) in zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) modes in an applied field of 100 Oe. (b) AC susceptibility ($`\chi ^{}`$) at 1, 9 and 99 Hz.

The magnetization (M/H) of (LaPd3)8Mn as a function of temperature for a number of fixed applied fields. The dotted line (guide to the eyes) trace the locus of the T2-peak which shift towards lower temperatures with increase in the applied magnetic field.

The magnetization isotherms of (LaPd3)8Mn as a function of applied magnetic field at several temperatures. Inset: data plotted up to 120 kOe at 2K.

The magnetoresistance (MR) of (LaPd3)8Mn is shown as a function of temperature for several fixed applied fields. The arrows (pointing upward) mark the position of T2-peak which shift towards lower temperatures with increasing applied fields. Inset: zero-field resistivity as a function of temperature up to 300 K.

(a) The in-field resistivity ($`\rho `$) of (LaPd3)8Mn as a function of T2 for several fixed applied fields. Lines indicate a quadratic behavior of $`\rho `$ in T. (b) The magnetoresistance (MR) of (LaPd3)8Mn as a function of applied magnetic field at 1.6 K.

The heat capacity (C) of (LaPd3)8Mn and its non-magnetic analogue (LaPd3)8Ga shown as a function of temperature. Upper inset: magnetic part (Cmag) of the heat capacity in (LaPd3)8Mn. Lower inset: C/T plotted against T2 for the two compounds. The lines are linear extrapolation of the data to T = 0 K.

The magnetic susceptibility of LaPd3Mn0.03 as a function of temperature: (a) DC susceptibility ($`\chi `$) in zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) modes in an applied field of 100 Oe. (b) AC susceptibility ($`\chi ^{}`$) at 1, 9 and 999 Hz. The continuous line is guide to the eyes.

The magnetic susceptibility of LaPd3Mn0.06 plotted as a function of temperature: (a) DC susceptibility ($`\chi `$) in zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) modes in an applied field of 50 Oe. (b) AC susceptibility ($`\chi ^{}`$) at 1, 9, 99 and 999 Hz. The solid lines are guide to the eyes.

The inverse molar susceptibilities: $`\chi ^1`$ and $`(\chi \chi _0)^1`$ of LaPd3Mn0.03 and LaPd3Mn0.06 as a function of temperature. $`\chi _0`$ is estimated by fitting the susceptibility data to the modified Curie-Weiss expression (refer text for details). The solid lines are the best-fit of the data to the modified Curie-Weiss expression.

(a) The heat capacity (C) of LaPd3Mn0.03 plotted as a function of temperature. Inset: The magnetic part in the heat capacity of LaPd3Mn0.03 (Cmag). (b) C and Cmag (inset) in LaPd3Mn0.06. C of the non-magnetic analogue LaPd3 is also shown both a and b.

(a) The magnetization (M/H) of (CePd3)8Mn in an applied field of 1 kOe as a function of temperature in zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) mode. Inset: an exaggerated view of the low temperature maximum in M/H. (b) The inverse molar susceptibility in an applied field of 5 kOe as a function of temperature. The solid line is best-fit of the data to the modified Curie-Weiss expression (c) The hysteresis loop in the isothermal magnetization (M) of (CePd3)8Mn measured at 2.8 K as a function of applied magnetic field.

The magnetization isotherms of (CePd3)8Mn at several temperatures between 20 and 75 K are shown as a function of temperature. (b) Arrot plots at 20, 30, 40 and 45 K in (CePd3)8Mn. The continuous lines are polynomial (in M2) fits to the high field data (please see text for details).

The resistivity of (CePd3)8Mn and CePd3Mnx ($`x=0.02,0.06`$) as a function of temperature. Inset: an enlarged view of the same in low temperatures.

(a) The magnetic part (Cmag) in the heat capacity of (CePd3)8Mn is shown as a function of temperature between 15 and 45 K. Inset: heat capacity (C) of (CePd3)8Mn is shown between 1.5K and 50 K. (b) C/T against T2 at low temperatures. The line is linear extrapolation of the data to T = 0 K.

The magnetic susceptibility of CePd3Mn0.06 as a function of temperature: (a) DC susceptibility ($`\chi `$) in zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) modes in an applied field of 100 Oe. (b) AC susceptibility ($`\chi ^{}`$) at 9, 99 and 999 Hz. The solid line is guide to the eyes.

The magnetic part, Cmag, (left axis) and the total heat capacity, C, (right axis) of CePd3Mn0.03 plotted as a function of temperature.


text:
# On coherent radiation in electron-positron colliders 11footnote 1This work is partially supported by grant 03-02-16154 of the Russian Fund of Fundamental Rerearch.

## 1 Introduction

The particle interaction at beam-beam collision in linear colliders occurs in an electromagnetic field provided by the beams. As a result, 1)the phenomena induced by this field turns out to be very essential, 2)the cross section of the main QED processes are modified comparing to the case of free particles. These items were considered by V.M.Strahkhovenko and authors , .

The magnetic bremsstrahlung mechanism dominates and its characteristics are determined by the value of the quantum parameter $`\chi (t)`$ dependent on the strength of the incoming beam field at the moment $`t`$ (the constant field limit)

$$\chi ^2=\frac{e^2}{m^2}(F_{\mu \nu }p_\nu )^2,\chi =\frac{\gamma F}{H_0},$$
(1)
where $`p^\nu (\epsilon ,\text{p})`$ is a particle four-momentum, $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is an external electromagnetic field tensor, $`\gamma =\epsilon /m`$, $`\text{F}=\text{E}_{}+\text{v}\times \text{H}`$, E and H are the electric and magnetic fields in the laboratory frame, $`\text{E}_{}=\text{E}\text{v}(\text{vE})`$, v is the particle velocity, $`F=|\text{F}|`$ and $`H_0=m^2/e=(m^2c^3/e\mathrm{})=4.4110^{13}`$ Oe. We employ units $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ and $`\alpha =1/137`$,

### 1.1 General formulas

The photon radiation length in an external field is

$$l_c(\chi ,u)=\lambda _c\frac{H_0}{F}\left(1+\frac{\chi }{u}\right)^{1/3}=\frac{\lambda _c\gamma }{\chi }\left(1+\frac{\chi }{u}\right)^{1/3},$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _c=\mathrm{}/mc`$ is the electron Compton wave length, $`u=\omega /\epsilon ^{},\epsilon ^{}=\epsilon \omega `$, $`\omega `$ is the photon energy. The field of the incoming beam changes very slightly along the formation length $`l_c`$, if the condition $`l_c\sigma _z`$ ($`\sigma _z`$ is the longitudinal beam size) is satisfied, providing a high accuracy of the magnetic bremsstrahlung approximation.

In the general case, when both polarizations of electron and photon are taken into account, the spectral probability of radiation from an electron per unit time has the form (see also )

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_\gamma }{dt}}dW_\gamma (t)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\sqrt{3}\pi \gamma ^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^\zeta (1+(𝝀𝝃))d\omega ;\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^\zeta =\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon }}(𝜻𝐡)K_{1/3}(z),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (t)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }}\right)K_{2/3}(z){\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}K_{1/3}(y)𝑑y,`$ (3)
where $`K_\nu (z)`$ is the Macdonald functions, $`z=2u/3\chi (t)`$, $`𝝀(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ are the Stokes parameters of emitted photons for the following choice of axes: $`𝐞_1=(𝐯\times 𝐡),𝐡=𝐅^{}/F,𝐞_2=𝐡,𝐅^{}=e/|e|[𝐇_{}+(𝐄\times 𝐯)]`$, $`e`$ is the charge of particle, $`𝜻`$ is the spin vector of the initial electron in its rest frame. The vector $`𝝃`$ determines the mean photon polarization and its components are given by the following expressions:

$`\xi _1={\displaystyle \frac{\omega (𝜻\mathrm{𝐯𝐡})}{\epsilon ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^\zeta }}K_{1/3}(z),\xi _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^\zeta }}\left[K_{2/3}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon ^{}}}(𝜻𝐡)K_{1/3}(z)\right],`$
$`\xi _2={\displaystyle \frac{(𝜻𝐯)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^\zeta }}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }}\right)K_{2/3}(z){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}K_{1/3}(y)𝑑y\right],`$ (4)
here $`(𝜻\mathrm{𝐯𝐡})=𝜻(𝐯\times 𝐡)`$.

Using asymptotic expansion of the Macdonald functions $`K_\nu (z)=(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )/2)(2/z)^\nu ,(z1)`$ we obtain for the case $`u\chi `$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^\zeta =\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\chi }{u}}\right)^{2/3}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}}\right);`$
$`\xi _1=0,\xi _2={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2\epsilon ^2}{\epsilon ^2+\epsilon ^2}}(𝜻𝐯),\xi _3={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon ^2+\epsilon ^2}}.`$ (5)
It is seen from given here characteristics that, generally speaking, the radiation is polarized. For unpolarized initial electrons $`\xi _30`$.

The probability of pair creation by a photon in the external field can be find from formulas (3), (4) using the substitution rule : $`\epsilon \epsilon ,\omega \omega ,𝜻𝜻,\lambda _2\lambda _2,\lambda _{1,3}\lambda _{1,3}(𝐞𝐞^{}),\omega ^2d\omega \epsilon ^2d\epsilon `$. Performing these substitutions we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_e}{dt}}dW_e(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m^2}{2\sqrt{3}\pi \omega ^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_e^\zeta (1+(𝝀𝚺))d\epsilon ;\mathrm{\Phi }_e^\zeta =\mathrm{\Phi }_e{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon }}(𝜻𝐡)K_{1/3}(y),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_e(t)=({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }})K_{2/3}(y)+{\displaystyle _y^{\mathrm{}}}K_{1/3}(x)dx,,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1={\displaystyle \frac{\omega (𝜻\mathrm{𝐯𝐡})}{\epsilon ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_e^\zeta }}K_{1/3}(y),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2={\displaystyle \frac{(𝜻𝐯)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_e^\zeta }}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }}\right)K_{2/3}(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _y^{\mathrm{}}}K_{1/3}(x)𝑑x\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_e^\zeta }}\left[K_{2/3}(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon ^{}}}(𝜻𝐡)K_{1/3}(y)\right],y={\displaystyle \frac{2\omega ^2}{3\epsilon \epsilon ^{}\kappa }},\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{\omega F}{mH_0}}`$ (6)
here $`\epsilon `$ is the energy of the created electron, $`\epsilon ^{}=\omega \epsilon `$ is the energy of created positron, $`𝜻`$ is the electron spin vector, $`𝝀(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ are the Stokes parameters of the initial photon.

Integrating (6) over $`\epsilon `$ (in some terms, integration by parts was carried out) we get the total probability of pair creation (per unit time)

$`W_e^\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(W_e{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m^2}{\sqrt{3}\pi \omega }}(𝜻𝐡){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{K_{1/3}(\eta )}{x}}𝑑x\right),`$
$`W_e={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha m^2}{3\sqrt{3}\pi \omega }}{\displaystyle _0^1}K_{2/3}(\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{13\lambda _3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x(1x)}}\right]𝑑x,`$ (7)
where $`x=\epsilon /\omega `$ and $`\eta =2/(3\kappa x(1x))`$.

For longitudinally polarized initial electrons (see Eqs.(4),(5)) the hard photons ($`\omega \epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}\epsilon `$) are circularly polarized. The polarization of created electrons and positrons is discussed in detail in. In particular, for the circular polarization of incoming photon the created electrons with $`x1`$ have the longitudinal polarization (see (6)). All these effects are manifestation of ”the helicity transfer”.

## 2 Photon Emission

Here we consider radiation from unpolarized electrons. The spectral probability of radiation is (3)

$$\frac{dw_\gamma }{d\omega }=\frac{\alpha }{\pi \gamma ^2\sqrt{3}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (t)𝑑t.$$
(8)
For the Gaussian beams

$$\chi (t)=\chi _0(x,y)\mathrm{exp}(2t^2/\sigma _z^2),$$
(9)
here the function $`\chi _0(x,y)`$ depends on transverse coordinates.

It turns out that for the Gaussian beams the integration of the spectral probability over time can be carried out in a general form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_\gamma }{du}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m\sigma _z}{\pi \gamma \sqrt{6}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+u)^2}}[(1+u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+u}})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}K_{2/3}\left(ay\right){\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}y}}}2a{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}K_{1/3}\left(ay\right)\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}y}dy],`$ (10)
where $`a=2u/3\chi _0`$. In the case when $`a1`$ the main contribution into integral (10) gives the region $`y=1+\xi ,\xi 1`$. Taking the integrals over $`\xi `$ we obtain

$$\frac{dw_\gamma ^{CF}}{du}\frac{\sqrt{3}\alpha m\sigma _z}{4\gamma }\frac{1+u+u^2}{u(1+u)^3}\chi _0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2u}{3\chi _0}\right)$$
(11)
For round beams the integration over transverse coordinates is performed with the density

$$n_{}(\mathit{\varrho })=\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma _{}^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\varrho ^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}\right)$$
(12)
The parameter $`\chi _0(\varrho )`$ we present in the form

$`\chi _0(\varrho )=\chi _m{\displaystyle \frac{f(x)}{f_0}},x={\displaystyle \frac{\varrho }{\sigma _{}}},f(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left(1\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2)\right),`$
$`\chi _{rd}=0.720\alpha N\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _c^2}{\sigma _z\sigma _{}}},f^{}(x_0)=0,f_0=f(x_0)=0.451256,`$ (13)
where $`N`$ is the number of electron in the bunch.

The Laplace integration of Eq.(11) gives for radiation intensity $`dI/du=\epsilon u/(1+u)dW/du`$

$$\frac{dI_{as}}{du}\alpha m^2\sigma _z\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{|f_0^{\prime \prime }|}}\frac{1+u+u^2}{\sqrt{u}(1+u)^4}f_0^{3/2}\chi _{rd}^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2u}{3\chi _{rd}}\right),$$
(14)
where $`f_0^{\prime \prime }=f^{\prime \prime }(x_0)=0.271678`$.

Integration of (10) over transverse coordinates gives the final result for the radiation intensity. For the round beams it is shown in Fig.1 for $`\chi _{rd}=0.13`$, the curve attains the maximum at $`u0.02`$. The right slope of the curve agrees with the asymptotic intensity (14) and the left slope of the curve agrees with the standard classical intensity.

$$\frac{dI_{cl}}{du}=\frac{e^2m^2}{\pi }3^{1/6}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/3)\chi ^{2/3}u^{1/3}$$
(15)
It will be instructive to compare the spectrum in Fig.1, found by means of integration over the transverse coordinates with intensity spectrum which follows from Eq.(10) (multiplied by $`\omega `$) with averaged over the density Eq.(12) value $`\chi _0`$ Eq.(13): $`\overline{\chi _0}=\chi _{rd}0.8135`$. The last spectrum reproduces the spectrum given in Fig.1, in the interval $`10^3u/\overline{\chi _0}1`$ with an accuracy better than 2% (near maximum better than 1%) while for $`u/\overline{\chi _0}10^3`$ one can use the classic intensity (15) and for $`u/\overline{\chi _0}1`$ the asymptotics (14) is applicable.

For the flat beams ($`\sigma _x\sigma _y`$) the parameter $`𝝌_0(\mathit{\varrho })`$ takes the form

$$𝝌_0=\frac{2\gamma 𝐄_{}}{H_0}=\chi _me^{v^2}\left[\text{e}_y\mathrm{erf}\left(w\right)i\text{e}_x\mathrm{erf}\left(iv\right)\right],\chi _m=\frac{2N\alpha \gamma \lambda _c^2}{\sigma _z\sigma _x},$$
(16)
here $`v=x/\sqrt{2}\sigma _x,w=y/\sqrt{2}\sigma _y`$, $`\mathrm{erf}(z)=2/\sqrt{\pi }_0^z\mathrm{exp}(t^2)𝑑t`$, $`\text{e}_x`$ and $`\text{e}_y`$ are the unit vectors along the corresponding axes. The formula (16) is consistent with given in . In , the term with $`\text{e}_x`$ was missed. Because of this the numerical coefficients in results for the flat beams are erroneous.

To calculate the asymptotics of radiation intensity for the case $`u\chi _m`$ one has to substitute

$$\chi _0=|𝝌_0|=\chi _me^{v^2}\left[\mathrm{erf}^2\left(w\right)\mathrm{erf}^2\left(iv\right)\right]^{1/2}$$
(17)
into Eq.(11) and take integrals over transverse coordinates $`x,y`$ with the weight

$$n_{}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma _x\sigma _y}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{2\sigma _x^2}\frac{y^2}{2\sigma _y^2}\right).$$
(18)
Integral over $`x`$ can be taken using the Laplace method, while for integration over $`y`$ it is convenient to introduce the variable

$$\eta =\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_w^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(t^2)𝑑t,w=\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}\sigma _y}.$$
(19)
As a result we obtain for the radiation intensity in the case of flat beams

$$\frac{dI_{fl}}{du}=\frac{9}{8\sqrt{2\left(12/\pi \right)}}\alpha m^2\sigma _z\chi _m^{5/2}\frac{1+u+u^2}{u^{3/2}(1+u)^4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2u}{3\chi _m}\right).$$
(20)
It is interesting to compare the high-energy end of intensity spectrum at collision of flat beams (20) with intensity spectrum of incoherent radiation with regard for smallness of the transverse beam sizes . For calculation we use the project TESLA parameters : $`\epsilon =250`$ GeV, $`\sigma _x=553`$ nm, $`\sigma _y=5`$ nm, $`\sigma _z=0.3`$ mm, $`N=210^{10}`$, $`\chi _m`$=0.13. The result is shown in Fig.2, where the curves calculated according to Eq.(20), and Eq.(5.7) in . It is seen that for $`x=\omega /\epsilon >0.7`$ the incoherent radiation dominates. For $`x>0.7`$ the incoherent radiation may be used for a tuning of beams .

Along with the spectral characteristics of radiation the total number of emitted by an electron photons is of evident interest as well as the relative energy losses. We discuss an actual case of flat beams and the parameter $`\chi _m1`$. In this case one can use the classic expression for intensity (bearing in mind that at $`\chi _m1/10`$ the quantum effects become substantial). In classical limit the relative energy losses are

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\epsilon }=\frac{2\alpha m^2}{3\epsilon }\chi ^2(t,x,y)n_{}(x,y)𝑑t𝑑x𝑑y.$$
(21)
Using Eqs.(9), (17), and (18) we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon }{\epsilon }=\frac{2}{9}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3}}r\chi _m^2,r=\frac{\alpha \sigma _z}{\gamma \lambda _c}.$$
(22)
For mean number of emitted by an electron photons we find

$$n_\gamma =\frac{5\alpha m^2}{2\sqrt{3}\epsilon }\chi (t,x,y)n_{}(x,y)𝑑t𝑑x𝑑y=0.59275\frac{5}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{6}}r\chi _m=1.072r\chi _m.$$
(23)
If $`\chi _m>1/10`$ one have to use the quantum formulas. For the energy losses one can use the approximate expression (the accuracy is better than 2% for any $`\chi `$)

$$d\epsilon /dt=2/3\alpha m^2\chi ^2\left[1+4.8(1+\chi )\mathrm{ln}(1+1.7\chi +2.44\chi ^2)\right]^{2/3}.$$
(24)
Here $`\chi `$ is the local value, so this expression for $`d\epsilon /dt`$ should be integrated over time and averaged over the transverse coordinates. For mean number of photons emitted by an electron there is the approximate expression (the accuracy is better than 1% for any $`\chi _0`$)

$$n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho })=\frac{1.81\chi _0r}{[1+1.5(1+\chi _0)\mathrm{ln}(1+3\chi _0)+0.3\chi _0^2]^{1/6}},$$
(25)
where the expression should be averaged over the transverse coordinates. For the project TESLA one gets for $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon /\epsilon )_{cl}=4.3\%`$ according to (22), while the correct result from (24) is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon /\epsilon )_{cl}=3.2\%`$. For mean number of emitted by an electron photons we have correspondingly $`n_\gamma ^{cl}1.6`$ while the correct result is $`n_\gamma 1.5`$.

## 3 Pair Creation

There are different mechanisms of electron-positron pair creation

1. Real photon radiation in the field and pair creation by this photon in the same field of the opposite beam. This mechanism dominates in the case $`\chi 1`$.
2. Direct electroproduction of electro-positron pair in the field through virtual photon. This mechanism is also essential in the case $`\chi 1`$.
3. Mixed mechanism(1):photon is radiated in the bremsstrahlung process, i.e. incoherently and the pair is produced in external field.
4. Mixed mechanism(2): photon is radiated in a magnetic bremsstrahlung way, and pair is produced in the interaction of this photon with individual particles of oncoming beam, i.e. in interaction with potential fluctuations.
5. Incoherent electroproduction of pair.

All these types of pair production processes were considered in detail in . In the actual case $`\chi 1`$ mixed and incoherent mechanisms mostly contribute. We start with the mixed mechanism (2). In the case $`\chi _m1`$ the parameter $`\kappa `$ Eq.(6) containing the energy of emitted photon is also small and the incoherent cross section of pair creation by a photon is weakly dependent on the photon energy

$$\sigma _p=28/9\alpha ^3\lambda _c^2\mathrm{ln}(\sigma _y/\lambda _c)\left(1+396\kappa ^2/1225\right).$$
(26)
If the term $`\kappa ^2`$ being neglected, the pair creation probability is factorized (we discuss coaxial beams of identical configuration). The number of pairs created by this mechanism (per one initial electron) is

$`n_p^{(2)}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}W_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },t)𝑑t{\displaystyle _t^{\mathrm{}}}2\sigma _pn_{}(\mathit{\varrho },t^{})𝑑t^{}d^2\varrho `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{35}{9}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}}Nr\alpha ^3\lambda _c^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _y}{\lambda _c}}{\displaystyle \chi _0(\mathit{\varrho })n_{}^2(\mathit{\varrho }d^2\varrho )}={\displaystyle \frac{35}{9}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}}Nr\chi _m\alpha ^3{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _c^2}{2\pi \sigma _x\sigma _y}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}(3v^22w^2)[\mathrm{erf}^2\left(w\right)\mathrm{erf}^2\left(iv\right)]^{1/2}dwdv`$
$`=0.1167\alpha ^3Nr\chi _m{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _c^2}{\sigma _x\sigma _y}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _y}{\lambda _c}}.`$ (27)
So for the project TESLA parameters the total number of produced pairs by this mechanism per bunch in one collision is $`Nn_p^{(2)}1.410^4`$.

Now we turn over to discussion of incoherent electroproduction of pairs when both intermediate photons are virtual. To within the logarithmic accuracy for any $`\chi `$ and $`\kappa `$ one can use the method of equivalent photons

$$\frac{d\sigma _v}{d\omega }=n(\omega )\sigma _p(\omega ),$$
(28)
where for soft photons $`(\omega \epsilon )`$

$`n(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{q_m}},\mathrm{\Delta }=m(1+\kappa )^{1/3},`$
$`q_m=m{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \chi }{\omega }}\right)^{1/3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _y}}q_F+q_\sigma .`$ (29)
Taking into account that the cross section of pair photoproduction is

$$\sigma _p(\omega )=\frac{28\alpha ^3}{9m^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m}{q_m(\omega ^{})},\omega ^{}=\frac{m^2}{\omega }(\kappa 1);\sigma _p\kappa ^{2/3}(\kappa 1),$$
(30)
we obtain in the main logarithmic approximation for the cross section of the pair electroproduction

$$\sigma (2e4e)=\frac{56\alpha ^4}{9m^2}_{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m}{q_m(\omega )}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m}{q_m(\omega ^{})}\frac{d\omega }{\omega },$$
(31)
where $`\omega _{max}=\epsilon /(1+\chi ),\omega _{min}=m^2/\omega _{max}`$. If we put $`\chi =0,\sigma _y=\mathrm{}`$ we obtain the standard Landau-Lifshitz cross section $`\sigma _{LL}`$ (see e.g. )

$$\sigma _{LL}=\frac{28\alpha ^4}{27m^2}\mathrm{ln}^3\gamma ^2.$$
(32)
With regard for the bounded transverse dimensions of beam and influence of an external field the equivalent photon spectrum changes substantially. For $`\chi 1`$ we have $`q(\omega )=m(\omega /\epsilon )^{2/3}+1/\sigma _y`$ and under condition $`\gamma ^{2/3}\lambda _c/\sigma _y1`$ we find

$$\sigma _v=\frac{28\alpha ^4}{3m^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\gamma ^{4/3}\frac{\lambda _c}{\sigma _y}\right)\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{\sigma _y}{\lambda _c}.$$
(33)
For TESLA parameters $`\gamma ^{2/3}\lambda _c/\sigma _y1`$ then

$$\sigma _v=\frac{28\alpha ^4}{81m^2}\mathrm{ln}^3\gamma ^2.$$
(34)
This cross section is three times smaller than standard $`\sigma _{LL}`$. For the project TESLA parameters the number of pairs produced by this mechanism per bunch in one collision $`n_v=L\sigma _v1.510^4,L=1/(4\pi \sigma _x\sigma _y)`$ is the geometrical luminosity per bunch. So the both discussed mechanisms give nearly the same contribution for this project.

It should be noted that the above analysis was performed under assumption that the configuration of beams doesn’t changed during collision, although in the TESLA project the disruption parameter $`D_y>1`$.