format: text

text:
# Effective R-parity violation from supersymmetry breaking

## Abstract

We present a scenario in which Yukawa-like R-parity violating (RPV) couplings are naturally suppressed. In our model, RPV is assumed to originate from the SUSY breaking mechanism and then transmitted into the SUSY Lagrangian only through soft SUSY breaking operators in the scalar potential. The RPV Yukawa-like operators of the superpotential, conventionally parametrized by the couplings $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$, are then generated through loops containing the SUSY scalars, the gauginos and the soft RPV interactions and are, therefore, manifest as effective operators with a typical strength of $`𝒪(10^3)`$.

One of the unresolved puzzles associated with supersymmetric (SUSY) theories is whether or not R-parity ($`R_P`$) is conserved in the SUSY Lagrangian. On the one hand, a general SUSY theory allows the existence of RPV trilinear operators in the superpotential whose strength is naturally of $`𝒪(1)`$. On the other hand, experimental searches for RPV interactions yield null results, which seem to indicate that such RPV couplings, if exist, are much smaller than $`𝒪(1)`$ as long as the typical SUSY mass scale is not much larger than the electroweak scale. The question then arises: why are the RPV Yukawa-like interactions so suppressed wherever they can emerge?

In this paper we propose a way for generating RPV Yukawa-like effective operators, with a structure similar to the ones which may appear in the superpotential (i.e., the usual $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ type RPV operators) RPVreview , however, with a typical strength $`<<𝒪(1)`$. We assume that the superpotential conserves $`R_P`$ and that RPV “leaks” into the SUSY Lagrangian through the mechanism that breaks supesymmetry. In particular, in this scenario, the only place where RPV interactions show up is in the scalar potential - in the form of three-scalar “soft” operators. Being “soft”, such scalar RPV operators cannot renormalize the Yukawa-like RPV operators and, so, the latter remain zero at all scales. Such a non-vanishing low-energy RPV soft operator will, however, generate an effective RPV Yukawa-like interaction through loops involving the soft interactions (for a related work see burzumaty ). In general, one expects that these effective RPV interactions will show additional patterns (compared to the “regular” $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ ones) due to their explicit dependence on the particles that run in the loops.

To illustrate how the new effective RPV couplings are generated, assume that $`R_P`$ is violated in the Lagrangian only through the pure leptonic (lepton number violating) soft SUSY breaking operators:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{R_P,L/}^{soft}=ϵ_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^a\stackrel{~}{L}_j^b\stackrel{~}{E}_k^c+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}(\stackrel{~}{E}^c)`$ are the scalar components of the leptonic SU(2) doublet(charged singlet) supermultiplets $`\widehat{L}(\widehat{E}^c)`$, respectively, $`\stackrel{~}{L}=(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L,\stackrel{~}{e}_L)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}^c=\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$. Also, $`a_{ijk}=a_{jik}`$, due to the SU(2) indices $`a,b`$.

This obviously means that in our framework the superpotential conserves $`R_P`$, i.e., $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ as well as the bilinear RPV terms ($`\mu _i\widehat{L}_i\widehat{H}_u`$) are absent. For example, $`\lambda _{ijk}0`$ in

$`\mathrm{\Delta }W_{R_P,L/}=ϵ_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijk}\widehat{L}_i^a\widehat{L}_j^b\widehat{E}_k^c+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (2)
In order to realize this scenario, let us suppose that SUSY breaking occurs spontaneously in a hidden sector at the intermediate scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{10}10^{11}`$ GeV, described by the $`R_P`$-conserving Fayet-O’Raifearartaigh superpotential:

$`W=m_{12}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2+g\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^2M^2\right),`$ (3)
where $`m_{12}M\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and under $`R_P`$ the chiral superfields in (3) transform as: $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3`$. SUSY breaking can then be triggered by the vacuum expectation values (VEV’s) of the auxiliary F-term ($`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}`$) of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3`$. We choose the minimum of the potential in this model to lie at $`A_{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}=A_{\mathrm{\Phi }_3}=0`$, $`A_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}=M\sqrt{1m_{12}^2/(2g^2M^2)}`$, which satisfies $`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}=m_{12}A_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}`$, $`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}=0`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_3}=g(A_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}^2M^2)`$.

Supergravity mediation of SUSY breaking can then be parametrized by the following $`R_P`$-conserving superpotential:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{Pl}}}{\displaystyle d^2\theta \left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\widehat{L}\widehat{L}\widehat{E}^c+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2\widehat{L}\widehat{L}\widehat{E}^c\right]}+h.c.,`$ (4)
which will spontaneously break $`R_P`$ and induce the soft operator in (1) with $`a\frac{F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}}{M_{Pl}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M_{Pl}}m_W`$, for $`m_{12}M\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The superpotential in (4) will also generate the operators $`\lambda `$ in (2) with an extremely suppressed coupling: $`\lambda \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}}{M_{Pl}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_{Pl}}10^910^8`$ at the high scale, essentially causing the soft operator in (1) to be the only source for RPV in this model. Alternative mechanisms for the generation of RPV were suggested in related .

In general, other operators which couple the hidden sector superfields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3`$ to the observable sector can be constructed, which will generate an RPV $`\mu `$-like term as well as a soft bilinear term $`B_i\stackrel{~}{L}_iH_u`$ (for a somewhat similar example see e.g., liu ). One can always rotate away the $`\mu _i`$ term at the high scale by a field redifinition. In the absence of the Yukawa-like trilinear terms, $`\mu _i`$ will remain zero at all scales at the one loop order (see carlos ). The $`B_i`$’s can also be rotated away at the high scale, however, even if they are zero at the high scale they will be radiatively (one-loop) generated by the non-zero soft trilinear $`a`$ term in (1) and evolved down to the electroweak (EW) scale through the RGE. Since, for $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\mu _i0`$ the RGE for $`B_i`$ takes a relatively simple form carlos , $`B_i(M_Z)`$ can be easily estimated. In the leading log we get:

$$B_i(M_Z)\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}h_\tau (M_Z)\mu (M_Z)a_{i33}(M_Z)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{M_Z^2}\right),$$
(5)
where $`h_\tau `$ is the $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling and $`\mu `$ is the usual $`\mu `$ term ($`\mu \widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d`$).

Let us now define the effective RPV terms which are generated at one-loop through the soft operator in (1) via diagrams of the type shown in Fig. 1 as follows:

$`_{R_P}^{eff}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_{ijk}}{16\pi ^2}}\right)\left[\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Li}\overline{e}_k\left(A_{L,ijk}L+A_{R,ijk}R\right)e_j+B_{L,ijk}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Li}\overline{\nu }_kL\nu _j+C_{L,ijk}\stackrel{~}{e}_{Lj}\overline{e}_kL\nu _i+D_{L,ijk}\stackrel{~}{e}_{Rk}\overline{\nu }_i^cLe_j(ij)\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (6)
where $`i,j,k`$ are generation indices and $`L(R)(1(+)\gamma _5)/2`$. Note that the customary RPV operators in (2) are obtained by setting: $`A_{R,ijk}=B_{L,ijk}=0`$, $`A_{L,ijk}=C_{L,ijk}=D_{L,ijk}=1\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ and $`a_{ijk}=16\pi ^2\lambda _{ijk}`$ GeV.

The particles running in the loop diagrams for each of the form factors in (6) are: (I) $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_R\chi _n^0`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Li}\overline{e}_ke_j`$ term, where $`\chi _n^0`$ are the four neutralinos ($`n=14`$), (II) $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_R\chi _m`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{Li}\overline{\nu }_k\nu _j`$ term, where $`\chi _m`$ are the two charginos ($`m=1,2`$), (III) $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L\chi _n^0`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{Lj}\overline{e}_k\nu _i`$ term and (IV) both $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L\chi _n^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L\chi ^m`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{Rk}\overline{\nu }_i^ce_j`$ term.

Calculating these loop diagrams we find that $`B_{L,ijk}m_\nu `$, i.e., no $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\overline{\nu }\nu `$ term in the limit of zero neutrino masses. Also, $`A_{R,ijk}A_{L,ijk}`$ since $`A_{R,ijk}`$ is proportional to the leptonic Yukawa couplings. Thus, neglecting terms which are proportional to the external lepton masses and to the leptonic Yukawa couplings we find

$`A_{L,ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{s_Wc_W^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_{\chi _n^0}𝒞_0^{a(n,ijk)}Z_N^{1n}\left(Z_N^{1n}s_W+Z_N^{2n}c_W\right),`$
$`C_{L,ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{s_Wc_W^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_{\chi _n^0}𝒞_0^{c(n,ijk)}Z_N^{1n}\left(Z_N^{1n}s_WZ_N^{2n}c_W\right),`$
$`D_{L,ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2s_W^2c_W^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_{\chi _n^0}𝒞_0^{d1(n,ijk)}\left((Z_N^{1n})^2s_W^2(Z_N^{2n})^2c_W^2\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{2}{}}}2c_W^2m_{\chi _m}𝒞_0^{d2(m,ijk)}Z_{1m}^+Z_{1m}^{}\right\},`$ (7)
where $`Z_N^{ij}`$ and $`Z_{ij}^+,Z_{ij}^{}`$ are the matrices that diagonalize the neutralino and chargino mass matrices, respectively as defined in rosiek , $`s_W`$($`c_W`$) is the sine(cosine) of the weak mixing angle $`\theta _W`$, and $`𝒞_0^{a(n,ijk)},𝒞_0^{c(n,ijk)},𝒞_0^{d1(n,ijk)}`$, $`𝒞_0^{d2(n,ijk)}`$ are the three-point loop integrals defined via:

$`𝒞_0(m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2,p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{i\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\left[q^2m_1^2\right]\left[(q+p_1)^2m_2^2\right]\left[(qp_3)^2m_3^2\right]}},`$ (8)
and

$`𝒞_0^{a(n,ijk)}𝒞_0(m_{\chi _n^0}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{kR}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{jL}}^2,m_{e_k}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}}^2,m_{e_j}^2),`$
$`𝒞_0^{c(n,ijk)}𝒞_0(m_{\chi _n^0}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{kR}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}}^2,m_{e_k}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{jL}}^2,m_{\nu _i}^2),`$
$`𝒞_0^{d1(n,ijk)}𝒞_0(m_{\chi _n^0}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{jL}}^2,m_{\nu _i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{kR}}^2,m_{e_j}^2),`$
$`𝒞_0^{d2(m,ijk)}𝒞_0(m_{\chi _m}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{iL}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{jL}}^2,m_{\nu _i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{kR}}^2,m_{e_j}^2).`$ (10)
Since the soft RPV trilinear $`a`$-term in (1) generates the soft RPV bilinear term $`B_i`$ through the RGE \[see (5)\], an effective $`\stackrel{~}{l}ll`$ interaction ($`l`$ for lepton and $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ for slepton) of the type (6) can also arise from slepton–Higgs mixing ($`B_i/B_0`$, where $`B_0`$ is the $`R_P`$-conserving soft bilinear term) followed by the Higgs couplings to leptons ($`h_l^{jk}`$, where $`h_l^{jk}`$ is the Higgs-$`l_jl_k`$ Yukawa coupling). The contribution of this diagram to the $`\stackrel{~}{l}ll`$ coupling is therefore $`h_l^{jk}\times B_i/B_0`$, and can be easily estimated when all tree-level low energy SUSY mass parameters are assumed to be of the same size, i.e., $`\sqrt{B_0(M_Z)}\mu (M_Z)a_{ijk}(M_Z)M_{SUSY}`$. Thus, from (5) it is clear that $`h_l^{jk}\times (B_i/B_0)(h_l^{jk}h_\tau /16\pi ^2)\times \mathrm{ln}(M_{Pl}^2/M_Z^2)`$. For $`jk`$ and for $`j=k=1,2`$ this effect is negligible, while for $`j=k=3`$ (couplings involving the $`\tau `$) we have $`\stackrel{~}{l}l_3l_3(h_\tau ^2/16\pi ^2)\times \mathrm{ln}(M_{Pl}^2/M_Z^2)`$, which gives $`\stackrel{~}{l}l_3l_310^4`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 𝒪(10)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{l}l_3l_310^2`$ if $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 𝒪(1000)`$. This effect will be studied in further detail in future .

In Table 1 we give a sample of our numerical results for the three effective RPV couplings in (7), corresponding to the “Snowmass 2001” benchmark points SPS1, SPS2, SPS4 and SPS5 of the minimal SUperGRAvity (mSUGRA) scenario snowmass . The ranges of values in Table 1 for each effective operator are due to slight differences in the slepton masses for different generations $`i,j,k`$. We see that the SPS1 and SPS5 scenarios give the largest effective couplings, of the order of $`10^410^3`$ if $`a_{ijk}16\pi ^2`$ GeV $`150`$ GeV.

Let us also evaluate the effective RPV form factors $`A_{L,ijk}`$, $`C_{L,ijk}`$ and $`D_{L,ijk}`$ in a low energy SUSY framework where the SUSY parameter space is defined at the electroweak scale. In particular, in the most general case $`A_{L,ijk}`$, $`C_{L,ijk}`$ and $`D_{L,ijk}`$ depend on: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`R_P`$ conserving bilinear Higgs mass term $`\mu `$, the three gaugino mass parameters $`M_1,M_2`$ and $`M_3=m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is the gluino mass) and the slepton masses. For simplicity, we assume the GUT relationship between the $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$, $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ gaugino mass parameters, namely, $`M_2=(\alpha _2/\alpha _3)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`M_1=(5/3)\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_2`$, where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is taken to be a free parameter. We further assume that all the charged sleptons and the sneutrinos get a universal contribution, $`m_0`$, to their masses at the electroweak scale. Thus, the masses of the charged sleptons and the sneutrino are given by (including the usual D-term contributions)

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2=m_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _Wm_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (11)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2=m_0^2(1/2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (12)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L}^2=m_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (13)
Under these conditions, our relevant low-energy SUSY parameter space is reduced to four parameters: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`m_0`$.

Using the above SUSY parameter space, in Fig.2 we show contour plots of our effective RPV couplings $`A_L`$, $`C_L`$ and $`D_L`$ (in $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$) in the $`\mu M_2`$ plane \[$`M_2`$ is fixed by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ due to the GUT relation mentioned above\], for two discrete choices of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, namely, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ =3 and 35. It should be noted that the numbers corresponding to a particular effective operator are flavor blind since we have assumed a universal contribution to the soft scalar masses. We can see from Fig.2 that for slepton masses of 100 GeV (the values of $`m_0`$ in each of the plots are chosen to give slepton masses of 100 GeV) and if $`a_{ijk}16\pi ^2`$ GeV and $`|\mu |`$ as well as $`M_2`$ are of the order of several hundreds GeV, then the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }ee`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_Le\nu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\nu ^ce`$ effective couplings in (6) range between $`4\times 10^42\times 10^3`$, where the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\nu ^ce`$ effective coupling is the largest of the three.

The existing upper bounds on $`\lambda _{ijk}`$ (see e.g., Allanach et al. in RPVreview ) are larger than the expected values of our effective couplings if the trilinear soft breaking RPV coupling, $`a_{ijk}`$, is of the order of the electroweak mass scale. We note that in the general case of soft lepton number violation, the scalar potential may also contain the RPV soft operator $`ϵ_{ab}a_{ijk}^{}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^b\stackrel{~}{D}_k^c`$, in which case both $`\lambda `$-like and $`\lambda ^{}`$-like RPV interactions may be effectively loop-generated. Then, the more stringent limits on the $`\lambda \lambda ^{}`$ coupling products can be applied to constrain our scenario. This will be investigated in a future work future .

Finally, in our model the soft RPV $`a`$-term in (1) gives rise to a neutrino mass only at the two-loop level (see burzumaty ), or equivalently, as an effective “tree-level” neutrino mass which is generated by the sneutrino VEVs ($`v_i`$) and is $`v_i^2`$. Since $`v_iB_i/M_{SUSY}`$ hirsch  and since in our model $`B_i`$ is a one-loop quantity, clearly this also is essentially a two-loop effect. Similarly, ”one-loop” neutrino masses involving two vertices of our effective $`\lambda `$s are essentially a three-loop effect.

To summarize, we have postulated that RPV can emerge in the hidden sector through the same mechanism that breaks SUSY and then transmitted to the SUSY dynamics at some high energy scale, only in the form of soft operators. A viable hidden sector model that gives rise to softly broken RPV was presented.

In this scenario Yukawa-like RPV operators are generated only through loops involving the RPV soft interactions. Such effective Yukawa-like RPV interactions are similar (albeit richer) in structure to the conventional $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ ones which, in most RPV scenarios, are added ad-hoc in the superpotential.

We have shown that this framework naturally explains the smallness and, therefore, the present non-observability of RPV interactions in low and high energy processes. The implications of our effective RPV scenario to the $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$-type couplings, as well as to bilinear RPV will be detailed in future .

We thank J. Wudka, Y. Shadmi, Y. Grossman and S.K. Vempati for very helpful discussions. S.R. thanks the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust for financial support.


text:
# Group Theory and Quasiprobability Integrals of Wigner Functions

Abstract

The integral of the Wigner function of a quantum mechanical system over a region or its boundary in the classical phase plane, is called a quasiprobability integral. Unlike a true probability integral, its value may lie outside the interval $`[0,1]`$. It is characterized by a corresponding selfadjoint operator, to be called a region or contour operator as appropriate, which is determined by the characteristic function of that region or contour. The spectral problem is studied for commuting families of region and contour operators associated with concentric disks and circles of given radius $`a`$. Their respective eigenvalues are determined as functions of $`a`$, in terms of the Gauss-Laguerre polynomials. These polynomials provide a basis of vectors in a Hilbert space carrying the positive discrete series representation of the algebra $`𝐬u(1,1)𝐬o(2,1)`$. The explicit relation between the spectra of operators associated with disks and circles with proportional radii, is given in terms of the discrete variable Meixner polynomials.

PACS Nos: 03.65.Fd 02.30.Gp 02.20.Sv 42.50.Xa

0. Introduction.

The problem of bounds on integrals of the Wigner quasidistribution function  over some subregion or contour of the phase plane for 1-dimensional quantum systems, has been introduced and studied as a theoretical issue , with applications in the field of quantum tomography (see e.g. ). For a classical (true) probability distribution, such an integral would always have a value in the interval $`[0,1]`$, but in the quantum case, the upper and lower bounds vary from region to region, and may lie outside the interval $`[0,1]`$. The relevance of such studies to quantum tomography, is that these bounds define checks on the accuracy of experimental determinations of Wigner functions. It has been shown  that, for a given region or contour, the bounds are determined by the maximal and minimal eigenvalues of a corresponding Hermitian operator, to be called the region operator or contour operator, respectively, acting in the space of square integrable (wave)functions of the quantum systems in question. Furthermore, the matrix element of such an operator *K* between such (wave)functions $`\psi `$, gives the value of the non-positive-definite quasiprobability integral (QPI), formed by the integral of the Wigner function corresponding to $`\psi `$, over the region or contour that determines the operator. Attention is therefore focussed on the spectra of various region and contour operators.

In what follows, starting from regions and their boundaries in the phase plane of a classical mechanical system, we use their respective characteristic functions to introduce corresponding region and contour operators. Specifically, we introduce the family of commuting operators $`K_D(a),K_C(a)`$, associated with a disk and a circle respectively, with radius $`a`$, centered at the origin of the phase plane. These operators are diagonal in the Fock space of the number states of the quantum harmonic oscillator. Their spectra, which determine the upper and lower bounds on the corresponding QPI, show a remarkable richness of structure. We show that these spectra, as functions of the radius $`a`$, are determined by the Gauss-Laguerre (GL) functions , acting as basis functions in vector spaces that carry the $`d=1/2`$ positive discrete series representation of the Lie algebra $`\text{so(2,1)}\text{su(1,1)}`$, involving two different differential operator realizations. Further, for operators $`K_{D,C}(\xi a)`$ that refer to disks/circles with different radii $`\xi a`$, $`\xi \text{R}`$, we find their eigenvalues are determined by the GL basis functions of scaled argument $`\xi a`$, while the latter are expressed as linear combination of the GL basis of argument $`a`$, with the Meixner discrete polynomials as expansion coefficients.

1. Quantum Mechanical setting.

A one-dimensional quantum system is described by means of the Heisenberg-Weyl (HW) algebra $`𝐡_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, with generators $`\{1,b,b^{}\}`$ satisfying the canonical commutation relations $`bb^{}b^{}b[b,b^{}]=1`$, $`[b,1]=0=[b^{},1]`$. In addition to the creation operator $`b^{}`$, annihilation operator $`b`$ and unit operator $`1,`$ we also use the number operator $`N=b^{}b`$, which satisfies the relations $`[N,b]=b,[N,b^{}]=`$ $`b^{}.`$ An irreducible infinite-dimensional representation $`\nu `$ of $`𝐡_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is carried by the so-called Fock space $`Fl_2(Z_+)=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\{e_n|nZ_+\}`$, with

$`\nu (b)e_n`$ $`=\sqrt{n}e_{n1},\nu (b^{})e_n=\sqrt{n+1}e_{n+1},\nu (1)e_n=e_n,`$
$`\nu (N)e_n`$ $`=ne_n,\nu (\mathrm{\Pi })e_n=(1)^ne_n,`$ (1)
where we have also introduced the parity operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for later use. We adopt the convention to denote an abstract element and its representative by the same symbol. Then, in the representation $`\nu `$, $`b^{}`$ is the hermitian conjugate of $`b`$, i.e. $`\psi ,b\phi _F=b^{}\psi ,\phi _F`$, as a consequence of the orthonormality relations $`e_m,e_n_F=\delta _{mn}`$. Now we introduce the bounded displacement operators

$$D(\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ^{}b\alpha b^{}):CB(F).$$
(2)
Here $`\alpha `$ is a complex number and $`\alpha ^{}`$ its complex conjugate. The displacement operators define a projective representation of the abelian group of addition in the complex plane:

$`D(0)`$ $`=1,D(\alpha )^{}=D(\alpha ),`$ (3)
$`\text{ }D(\alpha )D(\beta )`$ $`=D(\alpha +\beta )e^{i\alpha \times \beta },`$ (4)
with $`\alpha ,\beta C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\alpha \times \beta =\mathrm{Re}\alpha \mathrm{Im}\beta \mathrm{Im}\alpha \mathrm{Re}\beta .`$ Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is endowed with the geometric structure of a symplectic space and physically is identified with the classical phase space of the quantum mechanical problem dealt with. The family of Wigner operators defined as $`\{\widehat{W}(\alpha )=D(\alpha )\mathrm{\Pi }D(\alpha )^{}|\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ provides a continously parametrized operator basis for the Hilbert space $`𝒮(F)`$ of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on $`F`$ due to the relation

$$\widehat{W}(\alpha ),\widehat{W}(\beta )_𝒮Tr[\widehat{W}(\alpha )^{}\widehat{W}(\beta )]=\delta (\alpha \beta ).$$
(5)
Given $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}𝒮(F)`$, so that $`\widehat{A},\widehat{A}_𝒮<\mathrm{}`$ etc., then

$$\widehat{A}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{A},\widehat{W}(\alpha )_𝒮\widehat{W}(\alpha )d^2\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }A(\alpha )\widehat{W}(\alpha )d^2\alpha $$
(6)
and

$$\widehat{A},\widehat{B}_𝒮=_\mathrm{\Gamma }A(\alpha )^{}B(\alpha )d^2\alpha $$
(7)
where $`d^2\alpha =d(\mathrm{Re}\alpha )d(\mathrm{Im}\alpha )/\pi .`$ Of special interest are the the density operators $`\rho 𝒮(F)`$, which comprise the convex set $`𝒟`$ of operators satisfying $`\rho ^{}=\rho `$, $`\rho >0`$ and $`Tr[\rho ]=1`$. When expanded in the Wigner operator basis, a density operator furnishes as expansion coefficient, the corresponding Wigner function : $`W_\rho (\alpha )\rho ,\widehat{W}(\alpha )_𝒮.`$ Now (7) gives

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \widehat{A})=_\mathrm{\Gamma }A(\alpha )W_\rho (\alpha )d^2\alpha ,$$
(8)
which is interpreted as the expectation value of the observable represented by the operator $`\widehat{A}`$, or function $`A(\alpha )`$, when the system is in the state described by the density operator $`\rho `$, or by the Wigner function $`W_\rho `$. The set $`P`$ of ‘pure state’ density operators have the additional projection operator property, i.e $`\rho ^2=\rho `$, and the elements of $`P`$ are the extremal points of $`𝒟`$, i.e. $`𝒟=\mathrm{hull}(P).`$ For any $`\psi F`$, we define $`\psi (x)=_ne_n,\psi _FH_n(x)e^{x^2/2}`$, where $`H_n`$ is the (normalized) Hermite polynomial , so that

$$\psi _1,\psi _2_F=_R\psi _1(x)^{}\psi _2(x)𝑑x.$$
(9)
Now if $`\rho P`$ projects onto $`\psi F`$, the Wigner function corresponding to $`\rho `$ and $`\psi `$ takes the form

$$W_\psi (q,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_R\psi (q+x/2)^{}\psi (qx/2)e^{ipx}𝑑x$$
(10)
where $`q=\mathrm{Re}\alpha ,`$ $`p=\mathrm{Im}\alpha .`$ The Wigner function was introduced as analogous to a probability density in an exploration of the extent to which quantum mechanics can be cast into the form of a true statistical theory . As is well known and easy to show, $`W_\rho (q,p)`$ corresponding to some density operator $`\rho `$ is not in general positive everywhere. It is consequently called a quasiprobability function, and some of its previously known bounds, such as $`(1/\pi )W_\rho (q,p)(1/\pi )`$, as well as some recently found ones , can be used to help quantify its quasiprobability-density character.

2. Quasiprobability integrals, region operators and contour operators.

Let $`\chi __S(\alpha )`$ denote the characteristic function of a given region $`S`$ in the phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and let $`\widehat{\chi }__S`$ denote the corresponding operator given by (6), with $`\chi __S(\alpha )`$ replacing $`A(\alpha )`$ in the RHS. We refer to $`\widehat{\chi }__S`$ as the region operator corresponding to $`S`$. If $`S`$ is compact, $`\widehat{\chi }__S`$ is bounded, with a discrete spectrum.

Considering (8) in the case $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{\chi }__S`$, we see that the LHS is the expectation value of $`\widehat{\chi }__S`$, in the state $`\rho `$, while the RHS is the QPI on $`S`$, namely the integral of $`W_\rho `$ over the support of $`\chi __S`$.

It follows that the QPI on $`S`$ is bounded above and below by the greatest and least eigenvalues of $`\widehat{\chi }__S`$, respectively, and also that these bounds are attained when $`\rho `$ projects onto the corresponding eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{\chi }__S`$.

A region of special interest is the disk of radius $`a`$, centred on the origin, with region operator the disk operator $`\widehat{\chi }__SK_D(a)`$. It is known  that $`K_D(a)`$ commutes with $`N`$ for every $`a`$. This may be viewed as a consequence of the fact that $`N`$ generates transformations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which leave every such disk invariant. Furthermore, the eigenvalue of $`K_D(a)`$ on the eigenvector $`e_n`$ of $`N`$ has been found to be given by means of the Laguerre polynomials $`L_n(x)`$ as,

$$\lambda _n^D(a)=2(1)^n_0^aL_n(2x^2)e^{x^2}x𝑑x,n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
Generalising the idea of a region operator, we define  for every suitably smooth contour $`C`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, a contour operator $`\widehat{\chi }__C`$ using (6), replacing $`A(\alpha )`$ in the RHS by the generalised characteristic function $`\chi __C(\alpha )`$ of $`C`$. Here $`\chi __C(\alpha )`$ is defined by the property that, for every smooth function $`F(\alpha )`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }F(\alpha )\chi __C(\alpha )d^2\alpha =_CF(\alpha )𝑑l,$$
(12)
where $`dl`$ is the element of length along $`C`$. We can write

$$\widehat{\chi }__S=_S\widehat{W}(\alpha )d^2\alpha ,\widehat{\chi }__C=_C\widehat{W}(\alpha )𝑑l.$$
(13)
In the case that $`C`$ is the circular boundary of the disk of radius $`a`$, centred on the origin, we can see that the circle operator $`\widehat{\chi }__CK_C(a)`$ is given by

$$K_C(a)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{1}{ϵ}\left(K_D(a+ϵ)K_D(a)\right).$$
(14)
Furthermore, it can now be seen that $`K_C(a)`$ also commutes with $`N`$, and indeed with each $`K_D(b)`$, for every value of $`a`$ and $`b`$, and that on $`\{e_n\}_{nZ_+}`$, $`K_C(a)`$ has the eigenvalue

$$\lambda _n^C(a)=\frac{d}{da}\lambda _n^D(a)=2(1)^nL_n(2a^2)e^{a^2}a,n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{}.$$
(15)
3. Results.

Our main object now is to clarify the relation between the spectra (11) and (15) of commuting concentric circle and disk operators for various radii.

We begin with some group theoretical preliminaries: Let $`𝐠`$ denote the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ with generators $`\{S_0,S_\pm \}`$ in some representation, subject to relations

$$[S_0,S_\pm ]=\pm S_\pm ,[S_+,S_{}]=2S_0,$$
(16)
together with $`S_0^{}=S_0`$ and $`S_\pm ^{}=S_{}`$. The central element $`𝒞=S_0^2\frac{1}{2}S_+S_{}+S_{}S_+`$ belongs to the enveloping algebra $`U(\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})).`$ Consider in particular the positive discrete series representation $`𝒟_k^+`$ labelled by a positive integer or half integer $`k`$, and carried by a linear space $`H`$ with formal vectors $`\{d_n^{(k)}\}_{nZ_+}`$ and actions of the operators

$$S_\pm d_n^{(k)}=\mu _\pm d_{n\pm 1}^{(k)},S_0d_n^{(k)}=(k+n)d_n^{(k)},𝒞d_n^{(k)}=k(k1)d_n^{(k)},$$
(17)
with $`\mu _{}=\mu _{}(n)=[n(2k+n1)]^{\frac{1}{2}},\mu _+=\mu _{}(n+1).`$ We will consider two different realizations of $`𝒟_k^+`$, called the $`\pi `$-realization and $`\sigma `$-realization below. In each, the generators are realized by appropriate differential operators acting on representation spaces isomorphic to $`l^2(Z_+)`$ .

$`\pi `$-Realization. For $`M`$ real nonzero, the central element and the generators of the realization $`\pi :𝐠End(H_\pi )`$ of $`𝒟_k^+`$, are denoted $`L^{(M)}=\pi (C),L_0^{(M)}=\pi (S_0)`$, $`L_\pm ^{(M)}=\pi (S_\pm )`$, and act on the Hilbert space $`H_\pi L_2([0,\mathrm{}),dr)=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\{u_{k,l}^{(M)}(r)|MR,kZ_+,l\{\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{}\},r(0,\mathrm{})\}`$. The basis vectors are

$$u_{k,l}^{(M)}(r)=(1)^k\left(\frac{2\sqrt{M}k!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+l+\frac{3}{2})}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{M}r)^{l+1}e^{\frac{M}{2}r^2}L_k^{l+\frac{1}{2}}(Mr^2),$$
(18)
with $`L_a^b(x)`$ the associated Laguerre polynomial . In this representation module the generators are realized by differential operators

$`L_0^{(M)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}r^2,`$ (19)
$`L_\pm ^{(M)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(r{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (20)
Let $`d=\frac{1}{2}(l+\frac{3}{2}),`$ then the basis vectors of $`H_\pi `$ are eigenvectors of the central element with eigenvalues determining the representation i.e.

$$L^{(M)}u_{k,l}^{(M)}(r)=d(d1)u_{k,l}^{(M)}(r),$$
(21)
while the action of the remaining generators on the basis vectors reads

$$L_\pm ^{(M)}u_{k,l}^{(M)}(r)=\mu _\pm u_{k\pm 1,l}^{(M)}(r),L_0^{(M)}u_{k,l}^{(M)}(r)=(d+k)u_{k,l}^{(M)}(r).$$
(22)
$`\sigma `$-Realization. Here the central element and the generators of the realization $`\sigma :𝐠End(H_\sigma )`$ of $`𝒟_k^+`$ are denoted $`J=\sigma (C)`$, $`J_0=\sigma (S_0)`$, $`J_\pm =\sigma (S_\pm )`$, and act on the Hilbert space $`H_\sigma L_2([0,\mathrm{}),r^wdr)=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\{e_m^{(k)}(r)|kR_+,mZ_+,r(0,\mathrm{})\}`$. The basis vectors are

$$e_m^{(k)}(r)=2^W\sqrt{\frac{wm!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2k+m)}}\mathrm{exp}(r^w)(2r^w)^{kW}L_m^{(2k1)}(2r^w),$$
(23)
with $`L_a^b(x)`$ the associated Laguerre polynomial and $`W=\frac{w+1}{2w}`$ for $`w1`$. In this representation module the generators are realized by differential operators

$`J_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(w^2r^{2w}p_r^2+\xi r^w+r^w),`$ (24)
$`J_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(w^2r^{2w}p_r^2\xi r^wr^w),`$ (25)
$`J_2`$ $`=w^1(rp_r{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(w1)),`$ (26)
where $`p_r=i(d/dr+1/r)`$, $`\xi =k(k1)W(W1)`$, and the hermitian generators $`J_1=\frac{1}{2}(J_+J_{})`$ and $`J_2=\frac{1}{2i}(J_+J_{})`$ have been introduced.

The basis vectors of $`H_\sigma `$ are eigenvectors of the central element with eigenvalues determining the representation, i.e.

$$Je_n^{(k)}(r)=k(k1)e_n^{(k)}(r),$$
(27)
while the action of the rest of generators on the basis vectors reads

$$J_\pm e_n^{(k)}(r)=\mu _\pm e_{n\pm 1}^{(k)}(r),J_0e_n^{(k)}(r)=(n+k)e_n^{(k)}(r).$$
(28)
To make connection with the spectrum of the circle operator $`K_C(a)`$ we first observe that for basis elements of $`H_\pi `$ and $`H_\sigma `$, the relation $`<f(a),g(a)>_{H_\sigma }=<af(a),ag(a)>_{H_\pi }`$ holds among innner products. The choice of values $`w=2`$ i.e $`W=3/4,`$ leads to the relation $`ae_m^{(\frac{l}{2}+\frac{3}{4})}(a)=u_{(m,l)}^{(2)}(a)`$, among the basis vectors. Then we identify the eigenvalues of $`K_C(a)`$ with the basis vectors as follows:

$$\lambda _n^C(a)=a\sqrt{a}e_n^{(\frac{1}{2})}(a)=\sqrt{a}u_{n,\frac{1}{2}}^{(2)}(a).$$
(29)
Proposition

Let $`\xi R_+`$, then the spectra $`S_\xi ^{C,D}=\{\lambda _n^{C,D}(\xi a)|aR_+,nZ_+\},`$ and $`S_1^{C,D}=\{\lambda _n^{C,D}(a)|aR_+,nZ_+\},`$ of the respective circle/disc operators $`K_{C,D}(\xi a)`$ and $`K_{C,D}(a),`$ for concentric circles/disks of radii $`\xi a`$ and $`a,`$ are related by means of discrete Meixner polynomials $`\{M_n(m,2k;c^2)|m,nZ_+,k=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{}\}`$ as follows:

$$\lambda _m^{C,D}(\xi a)=𝒩_m\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c^nM_n(m,1;c^2)\lambda _n^{C,D}(a)$$
(30)
where the coefficients $`𝒩_m,c`$ depend on $`\xi .`$

Proof. We start by first stating the following, independent of any realization of the eigenvalue problem : let $`X_c=(c+1/c)S_0+S_++S_{}`$ , $`0<c<1,`$ and consider $`𝒟_k^{(+)}`$, the discrete series representation of $`𝐠`$ carried by a space with basis elements $`\{d_n^{(k)}\}_{nZ_+}`$. Then

$$X_cv_m^{(k)}=(c1/c)(k+m)v_m^{(k)},mN,kR_+,$$
(31)
with

$$v_m^{(k)}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\frac{(2k)_n}{n!}}c^nM_n(m,2k;c^2)d_n^{(k)},$$
(32)
where $`(\alpha )_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +n)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )`$ is the Pochhammer symbol , and the discrete variable Meixner polynomials are defined in terms of the hypergeometric series :

$$M_n(m,2k;c^2)=\text{ }_2F_1[\begin{array}{c}n,m\\ 2k\end{array};11/c].$$
(33)
\[The history of the spectral theory of operators like $`X_c`$ is rich and interesting in itself, for it illuminates the relation of special functions with the representation theory of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, and so provides a mathematical framework for our group theoretical study of region operators. Our $`\pi `$-realization is based on work in . In , the spectral problem of the operator $`H=2J_0J_+J_{}`$ in the positive discrete series representation of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ was shown to be related to generalized Laguerre polynomials. Following this, the analogous problem was addressed  for $`H=\sigma J_0J_+J_{}`$, ($`\sigma R)`$, and earlier, for a particular representation, in . The explicit relation to Meixner polynomials in some other realizations (cf. our $`\sigma `$-realization) was further studied in  for the general operator $`H=(\sigma +1/c)J_0J_+J_{}`$, $`(0<\sigma <1)`$.\]

Since by comparing (17) and (31) we see that operators $`S_{0\text{ }}`$and $`X_c`$ are isospectral apart from the factor $`(c1/c)`$, so we expect their formal eigenvectors to be related by a unitary transformation. To determine this tranformation we first use the Baker-Champell-Hausdorff formula  to rewrite $`X_c`$ in the form

$$X_c=(c1/c)e^{irS_2}S_0e^{irS_2},$$
(34)
where $`e^r=\frac{1+c}{1c}.`$ Its action on the eigenvector $`v_m^{(k)}`$ then yields

$$S_0e^{irS_2}v_m^{(k)}=(k+m)e^{irS_2}v_m^{(k)},$$
(35)
which leads to identifying eigenvectors of $`S_{0\text{ }}`$and $`X_c`$ up to the normalization coefficient $`𝒩_m`$

$$e^{irS_2}d_m^{(k)}=𝒩_mv_m^{(k)}=𝒩_m\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}<d_n^{(k)},e^{irS_2}d_m^{(k)}>d_n^{(k)}.$$
(36)
The right hand side of (36) together with (32) yields

$$e^{irS_2}d_m^{(k)}=\varphi _m\text{ }𝒩_m\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\frac{(2k)_n}{n!}}c^nM_n(m,2k;c^2)d_n^{(k)},$$
(37)
where $`|\varphi _m|=1.`$

We first observe that in order to scale the argument of eigenvalues we need the dilation operator $`\mathrm{exp}(a\frac{d}{da})`$ and that our choice of $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$-realizations are such that their respective operators $`L_2=\frac{1}{2}(L_+L_{})=\frac{1}{2}(a\frac{d}{da}+\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`J_2=\frac{1}{2i}(J_+J_{})=\frac{1}{2}(a\frac{d}{da}+\frac{3}{2})`$ are linear combination of $`a\frac{d}{da},`$ hence $`\mathrm{exp}(rL_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(irJ_2),`$ acting on a function of $`a`$, take the respective forms

$$\mathrm{exp}(rL_2)f(a)=e^{\frac{r}{4}}f(e^{\frac{r}{2}}a)\text{ and }\mathrm{exp}(irJ_2)f(a)=e^{\frac{3r}{4}}f(e^{\frac{r}{2}}a).$$
(38)
From this equation and the identification (29), we obtain

$$\mathrm{exp}(rL_2+\frac{r}{2})\frac{1}{a}u_{n,\frac{1}{2}}^{(2)}(a)=\mathrm{exp}(irJ_2)e_n^{(\frac{1}{2})}(a),$$
(39)
and multiplication of both sides by $`a\sqrt{a}`$ yields

$$\lambda _n^C(\xi a)=\xi a\sqrt{\xi a}e_n^{(\frac{1}{2})}(\xi a)=\sqrt{\xi a}u_{n,\frac{1}{2}}^{(2)}(\xi a).$$
(40)
Finally, by means of (36) and (37) and their respective expressions in $`\pi ,\sigma `$ realizations, and with $`\xi =e^{\frac{r}{2}}`$ , $`c=\frac{e^r1}{e^r+1}`$ and $`𝒩_m=\varphi _m(1c^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}c^m,`$ where specifically for the $`\pi `$realization, $`\varphi _m=(1)^m,`$ we obtain

$$\lambda _m^C(\xi a)=𝒩_m\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c^nM_n(m,1;c^2)\lambda _n^C(a).$$
(41)
From this relation and the spectral decomposition of the circle operator in the number state basis, we obtain that

$$K_C(e^{\frac{r}{2}}a)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _m^C(e^{\frac{r}{2}}a)e_me_m^{}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(𝒩_m\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c^nM_n(m,1;c^2)\lambda _n^C(a))e_me_m^{},$$
(42)
or that

$$K_C(e^{\frac{r}{2}}a)=\mathrm{exp}(rL_2+\frac{r}{2})K_C(a)=\mathrm{exp}(irJ_2)K_C(a).$$
(43)
In view of the simple relation between circle and disk operator spectra, we are led to integrate the scaled eigenvalues of (41) in order to get analoguous equations for the eigenvalues of the disk operator, namely

$`\lambda _m^D(\xi a)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^a}\lambda _m^C(\xi x)𝑑x=𝒩_m{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c^nM_n(m,1;c^2){\displaystyle _0^a}\lambda _n^C(x)𝑑x,`$
$`=𝒩_m{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c^nM_n(m,1;c^2)\lambda _n^D(a)_{}`$ (44)
Below we give a diagrammatic form of the content of the above Proposition: the two ladders of spectra for the disc and circle operators with proportional radii $`\lambda _n^{C,D}(a)`$ and $`\lambda _n^{C,D}(\xi a)`$ respectively, are shown to be related by means of coefficents determined by discrete Meixner polynomials, that are given as matrix elements of the dilation operator in the Gauss-Laguerre basis functions that carry the positive discrete series representation of the algebra $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{𝐬𝐨}(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$. Also in each spectral ladder the step operators of this algebra $`J_\pm `$ or $`L_\pm `$ operate to create and annihilate eigenvalues of the respective region or contour operators.

|  | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`J_{},L_{}J_+,L_+`$ |  | $`J_+,L_+J_{},L_{}`$ |  |
|  | $`\lambda _2^{C,D}(\xi a)`$ | $`\stackrel{}{Meixnerpol.}`$ | $`\lambda _2^{C,D}(a)`$ |  |
|  | $`J_{},L_{}J_+,L_+`$ |  | $`J_+,L_+J_{},L_{}`$ |  |
|  | $`\lambda _1^{C,D}(\xi a)`$ | $`\stackrel{}{Meixnerpol.}`$ | $`\lambda _1^{C,D}(a)`$ |  |
|  | $`J_{},L_{}J_+,L_+`$ |  | $`J_+,L_+J_{},L_{}`$ |  |
|  | $`\lambda _0^{C,D}(\xi a)`$ | $`\stackrel{}{Meixnerpol.}`$ | $`\lambda _0^{C,D}(a)`$ |  |

4. Conclusions.

The spectra of operators associated with integrals of Wigner functions over regions and contours of classical phase space, can have interesting structural properties. These operators form a new type of quantum mechanical observables, with important mathematical and physical meanings. In the case of discs and their boundaries, their eigenvalues, which carry the meaning of the QPI formed by Wigner functions over the corresponding discs and circles, behave as basis functions of a representation space of a Lie algebra of generators. These generators can be used to step up and down the ladder of these eigenvalues. We emphasize this unusual feature: the representation is defined on the spectrum of eigenvalues, not on the underlying function space on which the region or contour operators act.

Because of their intrinsic interest, as well as their potential importance in quantum tomography, it is important to study further the algebraic and functional properties of such operators. A number of open research problems can be mentioned: development of tranformation theory of region and contour operators under maps that induce simple geometric transformations on their associated region or contour of support; temporal evolution equations and behaviour of such operators under Hamiltonian dynamics of their associated quantum systems; clarification of their mathematical relation to covariant phase operators coming from the problem of quantum mechanical angular operators (see e.g ); addition rules for region and contour operators associated with many-body quantum systems and their relation to geometric manifestations of quantum entanglement; and finally, the extension of the concept of QPI, region and contour operators, and their spectral problems to phase spaces other than the classical phase plane, such as the sphere and the continuous and discretized torus. We hope to take up some of these problems in future work.


text:
# The spin-torque transistor

## Abstract

A magnetoelectronic thin-film transistor is proposed that can display negative differential resistance and gain. The working principle is the modulation of the soure-drain current in a spin valve by the magnetization of a third electrode, which is rotated by the spin-torque created by a control spin-valve. The device can operate at room temperature, but in order to be useful, ferromagnetic materials with polarizations close to unity are required.

Magnetoelectronic circuits differ from conventional ones by the use of ferromagnetic metals. Electric currents depend on the relative orientation of the magnetization vector of different magnetic elements, giving rise to the giant magnetoresistance (GMR). The additional functionalities are useful for sensing and data storage applications, like magnetic random access memories (MRAMs) Parkin . Several ideas on how to employ the spin degree of freedom for other applications exist Devices ; Wees .

Here we pursue the “spin-flip transistor”, a three-terminal device consisting of an antiparallel spin-valve in which the conducting channel is in contact with a ferromagnetic base Brataas00 . The source-drain current is modulated by the base magnetization direction, since the latter affects the spin accumulation in the conducting channel. It has been predicted Slon96 ; Berger96  and measured Rev  that the magnetization in spin valves can be switched by an electric current. In Ref. Xia02  it was suggested to use the spin-flip transistor as an MRAM element, in which the base magnetization is switched by the spin-torque due to the induced spin accumulation. In the following, we investigate the device parameters of the spin-flip transistor operated as an amplifier by controlling the base magnetization by a second spin valve in an integrated device that we call “spin-torque transistor” (Fig. 1). The lower part of this device consists of source and drain contacts made from high-coercivity metallic magnets with antiparallel magnetizations that are biased by an electrochemical potential $`\mu _S`$. The source-drain electric current $`I_{SD}`$ induces a spin accumulation in the normal metal node N1. We attach an electrically floating base (or gate) electrode B, which is magnetically very soft and has good electric contact to N1. When the magnetization angle $`\theta `$ is not $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ a spin current flows into the base that decreases the spin accumulation and increases $`I_{SD}`$ with $`\theta `$ up to $`\pi /2`$. On the other hand, the spin accumulation in N1 exerts a torque on B which strives to lower $`\theta .`$ $`\theta ,`$ and thus $`I_{SD}`$ could be modulated, e.g., by the Ørsted magnetic field generated electrically by the “write line” of an MRAM element, but this does not appear viable. We therefore propose the transistor in Fig. 1, which integrates a second spin valve with magnetizations rotated by $`\pi /2`$ from the lower one. An applied bias $`\mu _B`$ creates a another torque which pulls the magnetization into the direction collinear to the upper contacts. The base electrode then settles into a configuration at which both torques cancel each other. A variation in $`\mu _B`$ then modulates $`\theta `$ and consequently $`I_{SD}.`$ In the following we discuss the figures of merit of the transistor action, viz. the transconductance and the current gain of this device.

For most transition metal based structures exchange splittings are large, Fermi wavelengths short, and interfaces disordered. Electron propagation is therefore diffuse and ferromagnetic (transverse spin) coherence lengths are smaller than the mean-free path Zangwill . In these limits magnetoelectronic circuit theory is a convenient formalism Brataas00 ; Bauer02 . Spin-flip relaxation can be disregarded in the normal metal node of small enough structures, since Al and Cu have spin-flip diffusion lengths of the order of a micron Wees . Spin-flip in the source and drain electrodes can simply be included by taking their magnetically active thickness as the smaller of the spin-flip diffusion length and physical thickness. The base electrode is assumed to be magnetically soft and the thickness is taken to be smaller than the spin-flip diffusion length. These assumption are not necessary, since magnetic anisotropies and spin-flip in the base can readily be taken into account, but these complications only reduce the device performance and will be treated elsewhere. The source-drain current dependence on the base magnetization angle $`\theta `$then reads Brataas00 :

$$I_{SD}\left(\theta \right)=\frac{e}{h}\frac{g_S\mu _S}{2}\frac{2\left(g_B^{}+g_S\left(1p_S^2\right)\right)g_S^{}+g_B^{}\left(2g_S^{}+g_S\left(1p_S^2\right)\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{2\left(g_S+g_B^{}\right)g_S^{}+g_B^{}\left(g_S2g_S^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta },$$
(1)
where $`g_S=g_S^{}+g_S^{}`$ and $`p_S=\left(g_S^{}g_S^{}\right)/g_S`$ are the normal conductance and polarization of the source, and $`g_S^{}`$ and $`g_B^{}`$ are the “mixing conductances” of the source and base contacts, respectively. Drain and source contact conductances are taken to be identical. All conductance parameters are in units of the conductance quantum $`e^2/h`$, contain bulk and interface contributions Bauer02 , can be computed from first-principles and are taken to be real Xia02 . The torque on the base magnetization created by the spin-accumulation is proportional to the transverse spin-current Bauer02  into B:

$$L_B\left(\theta \right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{p_Sg_Sg_S^{}g_B^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mu _S}{2\left(g_S+g_B^{}\right)g_S^{}+g_B^{}\left(g_S2g_S^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta },$$
(2)
A steady state with finite $`\theta `$ exists when $`L_B\left(\theta \right)`$ equals an external torque, either from an applied magnetic field, or a spin accumulation from the upper side in Fig. 1. The differential source-drain conductance $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{SD}`$ subject to the condition of a constant external torque reads:

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{SD}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{I_{SD}\left(\theta \right)}{\mu _S}}\right)_{L_B}={\displaystyle \frac{I_{SD}}{\mu _S}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{I_{SD}}{\theta }}\right)_{\mu _S}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\mu _S}}\right)_{L_B}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_{SD}}{\mu _S}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{I_{SD}}{\theta }}\right)_{\mu _S}{\displaystyle \frac{L_B\left(\theta \right)}{\mu _S\left(\frac{L_B\left(\theta \right)}{\theta }\right)_{\mu _S}}},`$ (4)
where the first term on the right hand sides is the derivative with respect to $`\mu _S`$ for constant $`\theta `$ and the second term arises from the source-drain bias dependence of $`\theta .`$ The general equations are unwieldy and not transparent. The most important parameter turns out to be the spin-polarization $`p_S`$of the source and drain contacts. We therefore choose a model system with $`p_S`$ variable, but other parameters fixed for convenience, viz. the same parameters for both spin-flip transistors and $`g_B^{}=g_S^{}=g_S,`$ which holds approximately for metallic interfaces with identical cross sections Xia02 . We find that

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{SD}=\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{g_S}{2}\left(1p_S^2\frac{2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\frac{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}{4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right)$$
(5)
may become negative, since an increased source-drain bias tends to rotate the angle to smaller values, thus reducing the source-drain current. At the sign change of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{SD},`$ the output impedance of the spin valve becomes infinite, which can be useful for device applications.

We now demonstrate that it is attractive to modulate $`I_{SD}`$ by the spin-transfer effect Slon96 ; Berger96 ; Waintal00 . In contrast to work in the literature that was focussed on magnetization reversal by large currents Rev , we envisage controlled rotations by small voltages. The base is supposed to be highly resistive, consisting of a magnetic insulator, or, alternatively, of two magnetically coupled ultrathin magnetic films separated by a thin insulator. The device might be realized in the lateral thin-film geometry by van Wees c.s. Wees , using a soft magnet with a circular disk shape for the base, sandwiched in a cross configuration of normal metal films with ferromagnetic contacts. The device characteristics can be computed for the complete parameter space by circuit theory, but the important features are retained by proceeding as above and also assuming the same parameters for the upper and lower sections. The stationary state of the biased spin-transfer transistor is described by the angle $`\theta _0`$ at which the two torques on the base magnet cancel each other. For the present model this is the solution of the transcendental equation

$$\frac{\mu _B}{\mu _S}=\frac{7+\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0}{7\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0}\mathrm{tan}\theta _0.$$
(6)
The calculated source-drain differential conductance (now without tilde) has to be computed now under condition of constant $`\mu _B`$ rather then a constant torque

$$G_{SD}\left(\frac{I_{SD}\left(\theta \right)}{\mu _S}\right)_{\mu _B}=\frac{I_{SD}}{\mu _S}+\left(\frac{I_{SD}}{\theta }\right)_{\mu _S}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mu _S}\right)_{\mu _B}$$
(7)
which is plotted as a function of $`\mu _S`$ and polarization $`p_S`$ in Fig. 2. Note that with increasing $`p_S`$ strong non-linearities develop, which for large polarizations lead to a zero and negative differential resistance at $`\mu _B\mu _S.`$ The physical reason is the competition between the Ohmic current, which for constant resistance increases with the bias, and the increasing torque, which at constant $`\mu _B`$ decreases the current, as noted above.

The differential transconductance measures the increase of the source-drain current (at constant $`\mu _S`$) induced by an increased chemical potential of the base electrode $`T\left(\theta \right)\left(I_{SD}\left(\theta \right)/\mu _B\right)_{\mu _S}.`$ We focus discussion here on the differential current gain, i.e. the ratio between differential transconductance and channel conductance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T/G_{SD},`$ as a representative figure of merit. In the regime $`\mu _B\mu _S`$ and thus small $`\theta _03\mu _B/\left(4\mu _S\right),`$ the current gain becomes

$$\underset{\mu _B0}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\theta _0}{\frac{1p_S^2}{1+p_S^2}\frac{1}{3}\theta _0^2}.$$
(8)
For small polarizations the $`\theta _0^2`$ in the denominator may be disregarded and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _0,`$ thus is proportional to the control potential $`\mu _B.`$ When the polarization is close to unity, however, we see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes singular at small angles and changes sign. This behavior reflects the negative differential resistance found above for $`\mu _B`$ and $`\theta `$. For complete polarization $`\left(p_S=1\right)`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3/\left(2\theta _0\right).`$ For polarizations (slightly) smaller than unity we may tune the transistor close to the optimal operation point of infinite output impedance

$$\theta _{0,c}=\sqrt{3\frac{1p_S^2}{1+p_S^2}}$$
(9)
at which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\theta _0\theta _{0,c}\right)^1.`$

The working principle of this spin-transfer transistor is entirely semiclassical, thus robust against, for example, elevated temperatures. The derivations assumed absence of phase coherence and electron correlation, but the physics most likely survives their presence. The base contact is preferably a magnetic insulator or contains a thin insulating barrier (F$`|`$I$`|`$F), but the contact to the normal metal should be good (for a large mixing conductance). Tunnel junctions may be used for the source-drain contacts, but this will slow down the response time. It should be kept in mind as well that the dwell time of electrons in the device must be larger than the spin-flip relaxation time. The basic physics, such as the non-linearity of the source-drain conductance in Fig. 2, should be observable for conventional ferromagnetic materials. Large current gains exist for incomplete polarization close to unity of the source and drain ferromagnets, but at the cost of non-zero “off” currents. A useful device should therefore be fabricated with (nearly) half-metallic ferromagnets for sources and drains. As base magnet, a thin film of any soft ferromagnet is appropriate as long as it is thicker than the ferromagnetic (transverse spin) coherence length, but not too thick in order to keep the response to torques fast. We recommend a couple of monolayers of permalloy on both sides of a very thin alumina barrier.

In conclusion, we propose a robust magnetoelectronic three terminal device which controls charge currents via the spin-transfer effect. It can be fabricated from metallic thin films in a lateral geometry, but its usefulness will derive from the availability of highly polarized (half-metallic) ferromagnets.

We would like to thank Prof. G. Güntherodt for asking the question about the gain of the spin-flip transistor. We acknowledge discussions with Paul Kelly, Alex Kovalev, and Yuli Nazarov, as well as support by FOM, NSF Grant DMR 02-33773 and the NEDO joint research program “Nano-Scale Magnetoelectronics”.


text:
# Quark Correlations in Nucleons and Nuclei

## Abstract

A dynamical quark model of hadron and nucleus structure is proposed. In the frame of the model, called the Strongly Correlated Quark Model, quarks and nucleons inside nuclei are arranged in crystal–like structure.

How are nucleon properties modified inside nuclei and do quarks manifest themselves explicitly in ground state nuclei? These questions are the topics of this paper, where we show that the nuclear modification of nucleon properties is a result of correlations of quarks of bound nucleons.

The analysis has been performed in the frame of the so–called Strongly Correlated Quark Model (SCQM) . The ingredients of the model are the following. A single quark of definite color embedded in the vacuum begins to polarize its surrounding resulting in the formation of quark and gluon condensate. At the same time it experiences the pressure of the vacuum because of zero point radiation field or vacuum fluctuations which act on the quark tending to destroy the ordering of the condensate. Suppose that we place the corresponding antiquark in the vicinity of the first one. Owing to their opposite signs color polarization fields of the quark and antiquark interfere destructively in the overlapped space regions eliminating each other maximally in the space around the middle–point between the quarks. This effect leads to a decrease in condensates density in that space region and overbalancing of the vacuum pressure acting on the quark and antiquark from outer space regions. As a result an attractive force between the quark and antiquark emerges and the quark and antiquark start to move towards each other. The density of the remaining condensate around the quark (antiquark) is identified with the hadronic matter distribution. At maximum displacement in the $`\overline{q}q`$ system corresponding to small overlapping of polarization fields, hadronic matter distributions have maximum extent and densities. The closer they come to each other, the larger is the destructive interference effect and the smaller hadronic matter distributions around quarks and the larger their kinetic energies. In that way quark and antiquark start to oscillate around their middle–point. For such interacting $`\overline{q}q`$ pair located on the $`X`$ axis at a distance $`2x`$ from each other, the total Hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{m_{\overline{q}}}{(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}}+\frac{m_q}{(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}}+V_{\overline{q}q}(2x),$$
(1)
were $`m_{\overline{q}}`$, $`m_q`$ are the current masses of the valence antiquark and quark, $`\beta =\beta (x)`$ is their velocity depending on displacement $`x`$, and $`V_{\overline{q}q}`$ is the quark–antiquark potential energy with separation $`2x.`$ It can be rewritten as

$$H=\left[\frac{m_{\overline{q}}}{(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}}+U(x)\right]+\left[\frac{m_q}{(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}}+U(x)\right]=H_{\overline{q}}+H_q,$$
(2)
were $`U(x)=\frac{1}{2}V_{\overline{q}q}(2x)`$ is the potential energy of quark or antiquark. The quark (antiquark) with the surrounding cloud (condensate) of quark – antiquark pairs and gluons, or hadronic matter distribution, forms the constituent quark. It is natural to assume that the potential energy of the quark (antiquark), $`U(x),`$ corresponds to the mass $`M_Q`$ of the constituent quark:

$$2U(x)=C_1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z^{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y^{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^{}\rho (x,𝐫^{})2M_Q(x)$$
(3)
where $`C_1`$ is a dimensional constant and the hadronic matter density distribution, $`\rho (x,𝐫^{}),`$ is defined as

$$\rho (x,𝐫^{})=C_2\left|\phi (x,𝐫^{})\right|=C_2\left|\phi _Q(x^{}+x,y^{},z^{})\phi _{\overline{Q}}(x^{}x,y^{},z^{})\right|.$$
(4)
Here $`C_2`$ is a normalization constant, $`\phi _Q`$ and $`\phi _{\overline{Q}}`$ are density profiles of the condensates around the quark and antiquark located at distance $`2x`$ from each other. We consider by convention the condensates around quark and antiquark having opposite color charges. They have properties similar to compressive stress and tensile stress (around defects) in solids. Generalization to three–quark system in baryons is performed according to $`SU(3)_{color}`$ symmetry: in general, pair of quarks have coupled representations

$$33=6\overline{3}$$
(5)
in $`SU(3)_{color}`$ and for quarks within the same baryon only the $`\overline{3}`$ (antisymmetric) representation occurs. Hence, an antiquark can be replaced by two correspondingly colored quarks to get a color singlet baryon and destructive interference takes place between color fields of three valence quarks (VQs). Putting aside the mass and charge differences of valence quarks we may say that inside the baryon three quarks oscillate along the bisectors of equilateral triangle. Therefore, keeping in mind that the quark and antiquark in mesons and the three quarks in baryons are strongly correlated, we can consider each of them separately as undergoing oscillatory motion under the potential (3) in 1+1 dimension. Hereinafter we consider VQ oscillating along the $`X`$ axis, with $`Z`$ axis perpendicular to the plane of oscillation $`XY`$. Density profiles of condensates around VQs are taken in gaussian form. This choice is dictated by our semiclassical treatment of VQs motion. It has previously been shown  that the wave packet solutions of the time dependent Schrodinger equation for the harmonic oscillator move in exactly the same way as corresponding classical oscillators. These solutions are called ”coherent states”. This relationship justifies (partly) our semiclassical treatment of quantum objects.

We define the mass of constituent quark at maximum displacement as

$$M_{Q(\overline{Q})}(x_{\mathrm{max}})=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{m_\mathrm{\Delta }+m_N}{2}\right)360MeV,$$

where $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m_N`$ are masses delta–isobar and nucleon correspondingly. The parameters of the model, namely, maximum displacement, $`x_{\mathrm{max}},`$ and parameters of the gaussian function, $`\sigma _{x,y,z},`$ for hadronic matter distribution around VQ are chosen to be

$$x_{\mathrm{max}}=0.64fm,\sigma _{x,y}=0.24fm,\sigma _z=0.12fm.$$
(6)
They are adjusted by comparison of calculated and experimental values of inelastic cross sections, $`\sigma _{in}(s),`$ and inelastic overlap function $`G_{in}(s,b)`$ for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions . The current mass of the valence quark is taken to be $`5MeV`$. The behavior of potential (3) demonstrates the relationship between constituent and current quark states inside a hadron (Fig. 1). At maximum displacement quark is a nonrelativistic, constituent one (VQ surrounded by condensate), since the influence of polarization fields of other quarks becomes minimal and the VQ possesses the maximal potential energy corresponding to the mass of the constituent quark. At the origin of oscillation, $`x=0,`$ the antiquark and quark in mesons and the three quarks in baryons, being close to each other, have maximum kinetic energy and correspondingly minimum potential energy and mass: they are relativistic, current quarks (bare VQs). This configuration corresponds to so–called ”asymptotic freedom”. In the intermediate region there is increasing (decreasing) of the constituent quark mass by dressing (undressing) of VQs due to decreasing (increasing) of the destructive interference effect. This mechanism meets the local gauge invariance principle. Indeed, destructive interference of color fields of the quark and antiquark in mesons and three quarks in baryons depending on their displacements can be treated as phase rotation of wave function of single VQ in color space $`\psi _c`$ on angle $`\theta `$ depending on displacement $`x`$ of the VQ in coordinate space

$$\psi _c(x)e^{ig\theta (x)}\psi _c(x).$$
(7)
Phase rotation,in turn, leads to VQ dressing (undressing) by the quark and gluon condensate that corresponds to the transformation of the gauge field

$$A_\mu (x)A_\mu (x)+_\mu \theta (x).$$
(8)
Here we drop the color indices of $`A_\mu (x)`$ and consider each quark of specific color separately as changing its effective color charge, $`g\theta (x),`$ in color fields of other quarks (antiquark) due to destructive interference. Thus gauge transformations (7, 8) map internal (isotopic) space of the colored quark onto coordinate space. On the other hand this dynamical picture of VQ dressing (undressing) corresponds to chiral symmetry breaking (restoration). Due to this mechanism of VQs oscillations, the nucleon runs over the states corresponding to the certain terms of the infinite series of Fock space

$$B=c_1q_1q_2q_3+c_2q_1q_2q_3\overline{q}q+c_3q_1q_2q_3g\mathrm{}$$
(9)
The proposed model has some important consequences. Inside hadrons quarks and their accompanying gluons, as well, are strongly correlated. Nucleons are nonspherical objects: they are flattened along the axis perpendicular to the plane of quarks oscillations. First, because VQs undergo plane oscillations and second, owing to the flatness of hadronic matter distributions around VQs (according to (6)).

From the form of the quark potential (Fig.1) one can conclude that the dynamics of VQ corresponds to a nonlinear oscillator and VQ with its surrounding can be treated as a nonlinear wave packet. Moreover, our quark – antiquark system turns out to be identical to the so–called ”breather” solution of the sine–Gordon (SG) equation. SG equation in (1+1) dimension in reduced form for scalar function $`\varphi (x,t)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{}\varphi (x,t)+\mathrm{sin}\varphi (x,t)=0,$$
(10)
where $`x,`$ $`t`$ are dimensionless. The breather is a periodic solution representing bound state of soliton–antisoliton pair which oscillates around their center of mass:

$$\varphi _{br}(x,t)=4\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left[ut/\sqrt{(1u^2}\right]}{u\mathrm{cosh}\left[x/\sqrt{(1u^2}\right]}\right],$$
(11)
where $`u`$ is 4–velocity. During the oscillations of the soliton–antisoliton pair their density profile

$$\phi _{sas}(x,t)=\frac{d\varphi _{br}(x,t)}{dx}$$
(12)
evolves like our quark–antiquark system, i.e. at maximal displacement the soliton and antisoliton are maximal and at minimum displacement they ”annihilate”. This similarity is not surprising because our quark–antiquark system was formulated in close analogy with the model of dislocation–antidislocation , which in its continuous limit is described by the breather solution of the SG equation. It can be shown that the soliton, antisoliton and breather obey relativistic kinematics, i.e. their energies, momenta and shapes are transformed according to Lorentz transformations. Thus the dynamics of our strongly correlated quark system can be described by a sine–Gordon equation. Since the above consideration of quarks as solitons is purely classical, an important problem is to construct quantum states around them. Although the soliton solution of the SG equation looks like an extended (quantum) particle, the relation between classical solitons and quantum particles is not so trivial. Techniques for quantization of classical solitons with usage of various methods has been developed by many authors. The most well known of them is semiclassical method of quantization (WKB) which allows one to relate classical periodic orbits (breather solution of SG) with the quantum energy levels .

So far we have dealt with the scalar polarization field around VQ. How can one include spin in the frame of these classical considerations? According to the prevailing belief, the spin is a quantum feature of microparticles and has no classical analog. However, Belinfante  as early as in 1939 showed that the spin of an electron may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy, or a momentum density, in the wave field of the electron. Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields, performed by Ohanian , shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by classical circularly polarized waves. Inclusion of spin in our scheme brings us to spinning quarks–solitons or extended vortex representation of constituent quarks. As shown in a previous paper  the dominating contribution to proton spin comes from the orbital angular momentum of gluons and sea $`\overline{q}q`$pairs circulating around the oscillating VQs. Gauge field $`A_\mu (x)`$ in (8) contains along with the scalar part, $`\phi `$, vector components, $`𝐀`$, as well.

Now let us proceed to the many–nucleon problem. What would happen with oscillating quarks if we place a proton and a neutron nearby? Suppose that they aligned occasionally in such a way that a pair of quarks (one quark from the proton and another one from the neutron) with different flavor and color are nearest. Vacuum pressure acting from outside on these quarks decreases because of mutual influence (destructive interference, again) of the different color fields of these quarks. This effect results in attractive force between the nearest quarks from the proton and neutron. This force is near half in magnitude for that between the quark and antiquark in mesons and the three quarks in baryons at the same displacements. An additional attractive force comes from the flavor difference. To restrict these attractive forces quarks need to have parallel spins. As a result the potential (3) for adjacent quarks acquires an additional minimum at large quark displacements, small compared with the primary one. In that way the proton and nucleon form a bound state, namely, a deuteron. Now quarks of both nucleons oscillate around the deuteron center of mass interchanging their positions, with the quarks at free ends possessing maximal displacements. When all quarks pass the deuteron center of mass the adjacent quarks (at proton – neutron linkage) acquire angular orbital momentum ($`l=2`$) that should be accompanied with spin flip of both quarks to conserve the total angular momentum of the deuteron.

Noting that three quarks inside nucleons are totally antisymmetric in the color space and two quarks from different nucleons at linkage are in antisymmetric color state ( $`\overline{3}`$) having different flavors and parallel spins, we can construct more complex nuclei. The three nucleon system is formed by linkage of two quarks of each nucleon with quarks of two other nucleons according to the above rules. Three nucleon nuclei, namely $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, represent a triangular configuration with three quarks at free ends. There is a drastic difference of quark oscillation pattern starting from the three nucleon system. The decrease of external vacuum pressure on quarks in each nucleon results in decreased attraction force between them that leads to the displacement of the origins of oscillations of each quark to the nucleon periphery and to the amplitude reduction of quarks oscillations, i.e. each quark having constituent mass oscillate near its own origin of oscillation. And so the suppression of current (bare) quark configurations inside the nuclear medium occurs. Completion of a four–nucleon system, $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$, from a three–nucleon one, occurs by binding free quark ends in $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$) with three quarks of an additional proton (neutron) again in accordance with the above rules. Since each quark in each of the four nucleons is coupled in a pair with a quark of an adjacent nucleon, current quark configurations are totally suppressed and only constituent quark configurations are realized in $`{}_{}{}^{4}He.`$ Starting from $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ all nuclei possess 3D-crystal – like structure. Indeed, planes of oscillations of two protons and two neutrons are located on opposite faces of an octahedron with common vertex. In this geometrical configuration four nucleons are in an $`s`$ state that corresponds to the first s–shell of the shell model. Next, the $`p`$ shell represents octahedron of bigger size with two $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ triangles instead of protons and two $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ triangles instead of neutrons. The triangles are located parallel to empty faces of the $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ octahedron, the free quark ends of these triangles coupled as in the $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ octahedron. This octahedron with the nested $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ octahedron represents the nucleus of $`{}_{}{}^{16}O.`$ The next shell with principal number $`n=2`$ is constructed in the same manner, extending triangles beforehand by adding a row of three protons to the row of two neutrons in $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ and a row of three neutrons to the row of two protons in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He.`$ Again, these triangles are located in couples on opposite faces of an octahedron parallel to unoccupied faces of the nested $`p`$ octahedron. Construction of the next shells is performed in the same manner by extending triangles with new rows of neutrons and protons. When building the shells for $`n>2`$ one needs to take into account the predominance of neutron number over proton number. It can be shown that at fixed distances between nucleon centers of mass ($`2`$ $`fermi)`$ the nucleons are arranged into a face–centered cubic lattice. It turns out that at nucleonic degrees of freedom our quark model of nuclear structure is identical to the lattice model formulated by N. Cook and V. Dallacasa more than twenty years ago  and called the FCC (face–centered–cubic)–lattice model. They demonstrated that it brought together shell, liquid-drop and cluster characteristics, as found in the conventional models, within a single theoretical framework. Unique among the lattice models, the FCC reproduces the entire sequence of allowed nucleon states as found in the shell model. Manifestation of a crystalline structure of nuclei has been observed in the diffraction pattern of scattering of $`\alpha `$-particles on nuclei .

The above picture of quark rearrangements in multinucleon systems resulting in considerable suppression of current quark configuration leads to essential modifications of the nucleon properties inside nuclei. The suppression of current quark configurations inside nuclei manifests in various observable effects: the old ”EMC–effect” , color transparency breaking in large angle quasielastic $`pp`$ scattering off nuclei, suppression of high transverse momenta, jets and $`J/\psi `$s in heavy ion collisions at high energies. According to our model there are holes (depression of hadronic matter density distribution) in the centers of three– and four–nucleon systems. This effect has been observed experimentally . And one more important corollary: all nuclei are non–spherically symmetric, even nuclei with magic numbers. In conclusion, the following consequences of the proposed approach should be emphasized :

* quarks and gluons inside hadrons and nuclei are strongly correlated;
* there are no strings stretching between quarks inside hadrons;
* strong interactions of quarks inside hadrons and nuclei are nonlocal;
* nuclei possess crystal–like structure.

I am very grateful to Norman Cook for help and discussions.

This research was partly supported by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research, grant 01-07-90144.


text:
# Competing Orders and Disorder-induced Insulator to Metal Transition in Manganites

## Abstract

Effects of disorder on the two competing phases, i.e., the ferromagnetic metal and the commensurate charge/lattice ordered insulator, are studied by Monte Carlo simulation. The disorder suppresses the charge/lattice ordering more strongly than the ferromagnetic order, driving the commensurate insulator to the ferromagnetic metal near the phase boundary in the pure case. Above the ferromagnetic transition temperature, on the contrary, the disorder makes the system more insulating, which might cause an enhanced colossal magnetoresistance as observed in the half-doped or Cr-substituted manganites. No indication of the percolation or the cluster formation is found, and there remain the charge/lattice fluctuations instead which are enhanced toward the transition temperature.

The mechanism of the colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) in manganites is one of the central issues in the physics of the strongly correlated electronic systems Tokura2000 ; Dagotto2001 . By applying the external magnetic field of a few Tesla, the resistivity changes of the order of $`10^4`$-$`10^6`$. Although the double-exchange (DE) mechanism gives a reasonable description for the negative magnetoresistance Furukawa1999 , it is not enough to explain such a huge response. The first proposal for the mechanism of the CMR was based on the transition from small to large polaron driven by the magnetic field Millis1995 . The idea is that the effective bandwidth controlled by the DE interaction is enhanced by the spin ferromagnetic alignment under the external magnetic field, which leads to the crossover from small to large Jahn-Teller polaron. However, the change of the effective bandwidth is rather small, and this mechanism does not lead to such a huge effect. Thus, this single-particle picture is not satisfactory to explain the CMR.

Instead, recently, it has been recognized that the CMR is a collective phenomenon due to the many-body correlation. One of the present authors proposed a new mechanism of CMR based on the multicritical fluctuation between the ferromagnetic metal (FM) and the charge-ordered insulator (COI) occurring near $`x=0.5`$ ($`x`$: hole concentration) MurakamiPREPRINT . There, the enhanced fluctuations near the multicritical point trigger a giant response to the external magnetic field. An evidence for this multicritical scenario is the scaling law for the magnetization curve (Arrott plot). However, this scaling analysis holds only for some class of materials, while the others do not show a good agreement.

In the latter class of materials, the disorder appears to play an important role. Especially the spatially inhomogeneous structure has been observed experimentally Mori1998  and the percolation mechanism of the CMR is phenomenologically proposed based on this observation Moreo1999 . Namely it is assumed that the resistivity is determined by the percolating conduction paths, which are so sensitive to the pattern of the coexisting metallic and insulating regions under the influence of the disorder. The external magnetic field changes this pattern, and hence causes a large change of the resistivity.

Recent experiments in the half-doped manganites Ln1/2Ba1/2MnO3, where Ln is a rare-earth element, have elucidated more explicitly the importance of the disorder AkahoshiPREPRINT ; Nakajima2002 . In these compounds, the strength of disorder due to the solid solution of (Ln,Ba) ions can be tuned by careful treatment of the synthesis Millange1998 . Figure 1 shows the experimental phase diagram reported in Ref. AkahoshiPREPRINT . In the ‘clean’ limit where Ln and Ba ions form a periodic layered structure, the phase diagram shows a multicritical behavior where FM and COI compete with each other. On the other hand, in the ‘disordered’ case where the arrangement of (Ln,Ba) ions is random, the phase diagram changes in a very asymmetrical manner: FM is suppressed but survives at finite temperatures, while COI disappears and instead some glassy state is realized at low temperatures. This leads to a nontrivial regime where the disorder induces the transition from COI to FM (hatched area in Fig. 1). The enhanced CMR effect is observed above $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ in this regime AkahoshiPREPRINT . Similar phenomena are observed also in Ln0.55(Ca,Sr)0.45MnO3 TomiokaPREPRINT  and in Ln0.5Ca0.5MnO3 with the Cr substitution of Mn Barnabe1997 .

Therefore, to understand the mechanism of the CMR, it is crucial to clarify the effects of the quenched disorder on the competition between the FM and CO, and on the metal-insulator transition, which we undertake in this letter. Employing the unbiased numerical method to treat large fluctuations properly, we reveal that these two orders show contrastive responses to the random potential which indeed leads to the disorder-induced transition from COI to FM. Through the systematic study of density of states, conductivity, and fluctuations, we elucidate the mechanism of the enhanced CMR effect in this regime.

We consider a minimal model to describe a competition between FM of the DE origin and COI concomitant with the lattice distortion, whose Hamiltonian reads

$`H`$ $`=t{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)J_\mathrm{H}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _i^zS_i`$ (1)
$``$ $`g{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_iQ_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Q_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}Q_iQ_j+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\epsilon _in_i.`$
Here, the first two terms represent a simplified DE model which consists of the electrons’ nearest-neighbor hopping $`t`$ and the Hund’s-rule coupling $`J_\mathrm{H}`$. We consider the Ising-type Hund’s-rule coupling in the limit of $`J_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{}`$ for simplicity, which retains an essential physics of the DE mechanism Motome2001 . The third term describes the electron-phonon coupling. Here, we consider the classical phonons which couple to the electron density (breathing mode). The next two terms are the elastic energy of phonons. We take account of the cooperative aspect of the lattice distortion by the fifth term which reflects the fact that a displacement of an oxygen affects both MnO6 tetrahedra connected by the oxygen. The last term incorporates the random on-site potential energy $`\epsilon _i`$ which couples to the electron density $`n_i=_\sigma c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. The alloying effect of A-site ions in AMnO3 and the Cr substitution into the Mn site cause the structural and electrostatic disorder, which disturbs the on-site potential through the Madelung energy. Since large fluctuations in the competition between different orders are crucial in this study, we employ the Monte Carlo (MC) method in which the configurations of $`\{S_i\}`$ and $`\{Q_i\}`$ are stochastically sampled Yunoki1998a . In the presence of the disorder, we take the random average for different configurations of $`\{\epsilon _i\}`$.

We consider model (1) on the 2D square lattice in the half-doped case with $`x=0.5`$ ($`0.5`$ electron per site on average). We set the half-bandwidth $`W=4t`$ as an energy unit, and take $`\lambda =0.1`$ throughout this paper. A similar model was studied in a different context for the low-$`x`$ regime in the absence of the disorder Verges2002 . We consider the binary-type distribution of the random potential, $`\epsilon _i=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$. We apply the systematic analysis on the finite-size effect by using the series of $`L\times L`$-site systems with $`L=4,6,8`$ to distinguish the long-range ordering from short-range correlations. The numerical details will be reported elsewhere MotomePREPARATION .

Figure 2 (a) shows the phase diagram of model (1) in the absence of the disorder ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$). Note that the abscissa is reversed for comparison with experimental results. At $`g=0`$, the electronic part of model (1) becomes a pure DE model which exhibits the FM state below $`T_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ (the superscript $`(0)`$ represents the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$). As $`g`$ increases, $`T_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ decreases and the checkerboard-type COI concomitant with the cooperative lattice distortion appears below $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$. In the intermediate region where $`T_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$ intersect, we have the phase with both the ferromagnetism and the charge/lattice ordering (F+CO phase). Thus, the phase diagram exhibits the tetracritical behavior where four different phases meet at one point. The density of states (DOS) shown in Fig. 2 (d) indicates that the phases below $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$ including the F+CO phase have a finite energy gap. This tetracritical behavior can be turned into the bicritical one when we include a competing term between the ferromagnetism and the charge/lattice ordering by hand MotomePREPARATION , and the following results on the disorder effects are qualitatively similar in these multicritical phenomena.

The emergence of the F+CO phase is due to the robustness of the DE ferromagnetic interaction even in the insulating state. The DE interaction is effective if the electron wavefunction spreads, at least, for a finite spatial range. We note that this phase is also predicted in more realistic DE model for manganites AliagaPREPRINT ; Yunoki1998b , and is indeed observed in recent experiments Loudon2002 .

When we switch on the random potential, the phase diagram shows a drastic change. By introducing weak disorder with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.1`$ (Fig. 2 (b)), $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ is suppressed remarkably, whereas $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ is lowered only slightly. Accordingly, the tetracritical point shifts toward larger $`g`$ and lower $`T`$. For stronger disorder with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ (Fig. 2 (c)), $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ disappears down to the lowest temperatures in the present MC calculations (T
>0.008
>𝑇0.008T\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}0.008). This clearly shows the fragility of COI against the random potential compared to the DE ferromagnetism AliagaPREPRINT . As a result of this asymmetric effect, there appears the regime where COI is turned into FM by introducing the random potential, which is not clearly found in the previous study AliagaPREPRINT . These features are in good agreement with the experimental results AkahoshiPREPRINT ; TomiokaPREPRINT .

The DOS gives insights on the nature of these disorder effects. As shown in Fig. 2 (e) and (f), DOS in both the small-$`g`$ FM regime and the large-$`g`$ COI regime are not much affected by the random potential. Especially, Fig. 2 (f) indicates that the energy gap in the large-$`g`$ regime persists even when the charge/lattice long-range order is destroyed by the disorder. This means that a short-range correlation remains and the local lattice distortion persists to open the gap. Therefore, the collapse of the charge/lattice ordering is not due to the disappearance of the amplitude of the lattice distortion but due to the disturbance of the phase of the commensurate ordering with the wavenumber ($`\pi ,\pi `$). The random potential acts as the ‘random field’ to the CO order parameter, and its phase coherence is lost. On the contrary, the ferromagnetic order is robust against such pinning since $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ is essentially determined by the kinetic energy of electrons. These give a comprehensive understanding of the asymmetrical effect of the disorder on the phase diagram.

The most remarkable behavior of DOS is obtained near the phase boundary between the FM state and the F+CO insulating state. In the F+CO phase but close to the phase boundary at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, as shown in Fig. 2 (g), a small but clear gap in DOS below $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$ is rapidly collapsed by introducing the disorder and the system appears to be metallic. This indicates that the random potential easily destroys COI and induces FM in the proximity of the metal-insulator transition. This result also agrees well with experimental results AkahoshiPREPRINT ; TomiokaPREPRINT , which strongly suggests that the simple model (1) captures the essential physics of this competition between FM and CO in manganites.

Above $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ of the disorder-induced metallic state, the CMR is found to be much enhanced experimentally AkahoshiPREPRINT ; TomiokaPREPRINT . There, the system is insulating and shows a large drop of the resistivity near $`T=T_\mathrm{C}`$ toward the low-$`T`$ metallic phase. Our results are satisfactorily consistent with this behavior: Figures 3 (a) and (b) show the optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ for $`T<T_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`T>T_\mathrm{C}`$, respectively, which are obtained by the Kubo formula. In the low-$`T`$ regime, $`\sigma (\omega )`$ shows a disorder-induced insulator to metal transition which is consistent with DOS in Fig. 2 (g). On the contrary, at the high-$`T`$ regime, the disorder substantially reduces the low-energy weight and develops a quasi-gap structure in $`\sigma (\omega )`$, namely, it makes the system more insulating. These tendencies are also indicated in the magnitude of the lattice distortion, $`_iQ_i^2/L^2`$, as shown in Fig. 3 (c), which correlates with the localization of electrons. The distortion increases for $`T>T_\mathrm{C}`$ while it decreases for $`T<T_\mathrm{C}`$ when the random potential is introduced. These contrastive effects of the disorder suggest the temperature dependence of the resistivity $`\rho `$ as schematically drawn in Fig. 3 (d). In the absence of the disorder, the system causes the COI transition at $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$, where $`\rho `$ shows a sharp upturn. The disorder enhances the insulating nature in the high-$`T`$ regime, hence $`\rho `$ becomes larger while it does not show any anomaly corresponding to the COI transition. Below $`T_\mathrm{C}`$, the disorder induces FM, therefore $`\rho `$ should show a large drop at $`TT_\mathrm{C}`$ as shown in the figure. The large change of $`\rho `$ potentially leads to a huge response to the external magnetic field as is indeed observed in the CMR manganites AkahoshiPREPRINT ; TomiokaPREPRINT . Thus, the origin of the enhanced CMR can be attributed to the contrastive influence of the disorder in low-$`T`$ and high-$`T`$ regimes near the metal-insulator phase boundary.

We discuss here this insulating state for $`T>T_\mathrm{C}`$ in more detail. In the percolation scenario for the CMR Moreo1999 , the system is supposed to be a coexisting mixture of the metallic and the insulating clusters below the FM or COI transition temperatures in the absence of the disorder, $`T_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$, respectively. However, our simulation does not show any clear indication of this coexistence. Figure 4 (a) shows the standard deviation of the square of the lattice distortion $`Q_i^2`$ among the sites as a function of the temperature. The standard deviation changes monotonously and remains small (compare to the values in Fig. 3 (c)). This is contrary to the percolation picture in which we expect an enhancement for $`T<T_\mathrm{C}^{(0)}`$ or $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$ due to the formation of the metallic (smaller $`Q_i^2`$) and the insulating (larger $`Q_i^2`$) clusters. Instead of the cluster formation, we find fluctuations or short-range correlations of the charge/lattice ordering. Figure 4 (b) shows the susceptibility for the ($`\pi ,\pi `$) lattice ordering. In the absence of the disorder, the susceptibility shows a sharp cusp at $`T=T_{\mathrm{CO}}^{(0)}`$, which leads to the divergence in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. Although the disorder destroys COI and makes the cusp obscure, the fluctuation remains finite and is enhanced as $`TT_\mathrm{C}`$. The contrastive behavior between above and below $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ in the disordered case is in accord with this temperature dependence of $`\chi `$. Namely the CO fluctuation is enhanced towards $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ from above while it is suppressed at the lowest temperature. This could be regarded as the reminiscence of the multicritical phenomenon in the pure case. This is also in good agreement with the diffuse scattering experiments which indicate a large fluctuation of the charge/lattice ordering above $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ TomiokaPREPRINT ; Shimomura1999 . We note that this fluctuation is suppressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases, which may account for the deviation from the scaling law MurakamiPREPRINT . Therefore, our results indicate that the phase above $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ is not likely the inhomogeneous mixture of the static clusters but a rather homogenous state with the thermodynamic charge/lattice fluctuations.

The authors acknowledge Y. Tokura, Y. Tomioka, and E. Dagotto for fruitful discussions. This work is supported by Grant-in-Aids from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.

Present address: RIKEN (The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research), 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan.