text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let us start with Einstein. If the momentum of a particle is much smaller than its mass, the energy-momentum relation is $`E=p^2/2m+mc^2`$. If the momentum is much larger than the mass, the relation is $`E=cp`$. These two different relations can be combined into one covariant formula. This aspect of Einstein’s $`E=mc^2`$ is well known.

In the quantum world, particles have internal space-time variables. Massive particles have spins while massless particles have their helicities and gauge variables. Our first question is whether this aspect of space-time variables can be unified into one covariant concept. The answer to this question is Yes. Wigner’s little group does the job, as is illustrated in Table 1.

In addition, particles can have space-time extensions. For instance, in the quark model, hadrons are bound states of quarks. However, the hadrons appear as collections of partons when they move with speed close to the velocity of light. Quarks and partons seem to have quite distinct properties. The most serious difference is that the partons interact incoherently with external signals while the quark are coherent particles. The purpose of this report is to address this issue, after reviewing what Wigner did and what Feynman did to understand the Lorentz-covariant world.

By “further contents of $`E=mc^2`$”, we mean that the internal space-time structures of massive and massless particles can be unified into one covariant package, as $`E=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}`$ does for the energy-momentum relation. The mathematical framework of this program was developed by Eugene Wigner in 1939 . He constructed the maximal subgroups of the Lorentz group whose transformations will leave the four-momentum of a given particle invariant. These groups are known as Wigner’s little groups.

Thanks to high-energy accelerators, we can do experiments with massive particles, such as protons and heavy ions, which move with relativistic speed. After Gell-Mann invented the quark model where all hadrons are quantum bound-states of quarks, Feynman came up with an idea that a hadron appears like a collection of partons when it moves with a velocity close to that of light. Then the question is whether the quark model and the parton model are two different manifestations of the same covariant entity.

In order to have a theory of extended particles, we need bound-state wave functions of the quarks inside the hadron. These wave functions have to be covariant. This is the most fundamental problem. Neither the present form of quantum mechanics nor the quantum field theory addresses this issue. Let us start with a well-localized wave function in one Lorentz frame. Then how would this look to an observer in a different Lorentz frame? Here, Feynman was right in guessing that the first covariant wave function has to be that of harmonic oscillators, as in the case of most of new theories. He and his coauthors started constructing such functions, and showed that the hadronic mass spectra are consistent with the degeneracies of the three-dimensional oscillators.

However, Feynman et al. did not succeed in constructing a covariant formalism. Indeed, this is possible if we construct Wigner’s little group for massive particles. The wave functions in this representation is covariant, and we use these wave functions to show that the quark model and the parton model are two different manifestations of one covariant model. The scope of this report is summarized in Table 1

## 2 Formulation of the Problem

It was Eugene Wigner who observed that the space-time symmetry of relativistic particles is dictated by the Poincaré group, the group of inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations, namely Lorentz transformations preceded or followed by space-time translations . In particular, Wigner studied the maximal subgroups of the Lorentz group whose transformations leave the four-momentum of a given free particle. These subgroups are called the little groups. Since the little group leaves the four-momentum invariant, it governs the internal space-time symmetries of relativistic particles. Wigner shows in his paper that the internal space-time symmetries of massive and massless particles are dictated by the little groups which are locally isomorphic to the three-dimensional rotation group and the two-dimensional Euclidean groups respectively.

The group of Lorentz transformations consists of three boosts and three rotations. The rotations therefore constitute a subgroup of the Lorentz group. If a massive particle is at rest, its four-momentum is invariant under rotations. Thus the little group for a massive particle at rest is the three-dimensional rotation group. Then what is affected by the rotation? The answer to this question is very simple. The particle in general has its spin. The spin orientation is going to be affected by the rotation!

If we use the four-vector coordinate $`(x,y,z,t)`$, the Lorentz group is generated by three rotation generators $`J_i`$ and three boost generators $`K_i`$. They satisfy the commutation relations

$$[J_i,J_j]=iϵ_{ijk}J_k,[J_i,K_j]=iϵ_{ijk}K_k,[K_i,K_j]=iϵ_{ijk}J_k.$$
(1)
This means that the three rotation generators form a closed set of commutation relations. Indeed, they are the generators of the $`O(3)`$-like little group for a massive particle at rest. If the particle is at rest, its momentum is invariant under rotations. However, its spin direction becomes rotated. Therefore, the $`O(3)`$-like little group defined the spin degree of freedom.

It is not possible to bring a massless particle to its rest frame, but we can consider a massive particle moving along the $`z`$ direction wihout loss of generality. In his 1939 article, Wigner observed that the little group for this massless particle is generated by

$$J_3,,N_1=K_1J_2,N_2=K_2+J_1,$$
(2)
They satisfy the commutation relations

$$[N_1,N_2]=0,[J_3,N_1]=iN_2,[J_3,N_2]=iN_1.$$
(3)
In order to understand the mathematical basis of the above commutation relations, let us consider transformations on a two-dimensional plane with the $`xy`$ coordinate system. We can then make rotations around the origin and translations along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. If we write these generators as $`L,P_x`$ and $`P_y`$ respectively, they satisfy the commutation relations

$$[P_x,P_y]=0,[L,P_x]=iP_y,[L,P_y]=iP_x.$$
(4)
This is a closed set of commutation relations for the generators of the $`E(2)`$ group. If we replace $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ of Eq.(3) by $`P_x`$ and $`P_y`$, and $`J_3`$ by $`L`$, the commutations relations for the generators of the $`E(2)`$-like little group becomes those for the $`E(2)`$-like little group. This is precisely why we say that the little group for massless particles are like $`E(2)`$.

It is not difficult to associate the rotation generator $`J_3`$ with the helicity degree of freedom of the massless particle. Then what physical variable is associated with the $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ generators? Indeed, Wigner was the one who discovered the existence of these generators, but did not give any physical interpretation to these translation-like generators. For this reason, for many years, only those representations with the zero-eigenvalues of the $`N`$ operators were thought to be physically meaningful representations . It was not until 1971 when Janner and Janssen reported that the transformations generated by these operators are gauge transformations . The role of this translation-like transformation has also been studied for spin-1/2 particles, and it was concluded that the polarization of neutrinos is due to gauge invariance .

## 3 Contraction of O(3)-like to E(2)-like Little Groups

The $`O(3)`$-like little group remains $`O(3)`$-like when the particle is Lorentz-boosted. Then, what happens when the particle speed becomes the speed of light? The energy-momentum relation $`E=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}`$ become $`E=p`$. Is there then a limiting case of the $`O(3)`$-like little group? Since those little groups are like the three-dimensional rotation group and the two-dimensional Euclidean group respectively, we are first interested in whether $`E(2)`$ can be obtained from $`O(3)`$. This will then give a clue to obtaining the $`E(2)`$-like little group as a limiting case of $`O(3)`$-like little group. With this point in mind, let us look into this geometrical problem.

In 1953, Inonu and Wigner formulated this problem as the contraction of $`O(3)`$ to $`E(2)`$ . Let us see what they did. We always associate the three-dimensional rotation group with a spherical surface. Let us consider a circular area of radius 1 kilometer centered on the north pole of the earth. Since the radius of the earth is more than 6,450 times longer, the circular region appears flat. Thus, within this region, we use the $`E(2)`$ symmetry group for this region. The validity of this approximation depends on the ratio of the two radii.

How about then the little groups which are isomorphic to $`O(3)`$ and $`E(2)`$? It is reasonable to expect that the $`E(2)`$-like little group be obtained as a limiting case for of the $`O(3)`$-like little group for massless particles. In 1981, it was observed by Ferrara and Savoy that this limiting process is the Lorentz boost . In 1983, using the same limiting process as that of Ferrara and Savoy, Han et al showed that transverse rotation generators become the generators of gauge transformations in the limit of infinite momentum and/or zero mass .

Let us see how this happens when the system is Lorentz-boosted along the $`z`$ direction. The $`J_3`$ generator is not affected by the boost whose transformation matrix takes the form

$$B=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\eta K_3\right).$$
(5)
On the other hand, the $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ matrices become

$$N_1=e^\eta B^1J_2B,N_2=e^\eta B^1J_1B,$$
(6)
and they become $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ given in Eq.(2). The generators $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are the contracted $`J_2`$ and $`J_1`$ respectively in the infinite-momentum/zero-mass limit. In 1987, Kim and Wigner studied this problem in more detail and showed that the little group for massless particles is the cylindrical group which is isomorphic to the $`E(2)`$ group .

This completes the second row in Table 1, where Wigner’s little group unifies the internal space-time symmetries of massive and massless particles. The transverse components of the rotation generators become generators of gauge transformations in the infinite-momentum/zero-mass limit.

## 4 Covariant Harmonic Oscillators

We are now interested in constructing the third row in Table I. As we promised in Sec. 1, we will be dealing with hadrons which are bound states of quarks with space-time extensions. For this purpose, we need a set of covariant wave functions consistent with the existing laws of quantum mechanics, including of course the uncertainty principle and probability interpretation. The first wave function which comes to our mind is the harmonic oscillator wave function. If we are interested in Lorentz-transforming them, the most straight-forward method is to construct representations of the Poincaré group using harmonic oscillators wave functions .

In this report, we start with the Lorentz-invariant differential equation of Feynman, Kislinger, and Ravndal . It is a linear partial differential equation which has many different solutions depending on boundary conditions. Unlike in the case of Feynman et al., we use normalizable wave functions which constitute a representation of the $`O(3)`$-like little group .

Let us consider a bound state of two particles. For convenience, we shall call the bound state the hadron, and call its constituents quarks. Then there is a Bohr-like radius measuring the space-like separation between the quarks. There is also a time-like separation between the quarks, and this variable becomes mixed with the longitudinal spatial separation as the hadron moves with a relativistic speed. There are no quantum excitations along the time-like direction. On the other hand, there is the time-energy uncertainty relation which allows quantum transitions. It is possible to accommodate these aspect within the framework of the present form of quantum mechanics. The uncertainty relation between the time and energy variables is the c-number relation , which does not allow excitations along the time-like coordinate. We shall see that the covariant harmonic oscillator formalism accommodates this narrow window in the present form of quantum mechanics.

For a hadron consisting of two quarks, we can consider their space-time positions $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$, and use the variables

$$X=(x_a+x_b)/2,x=(x_ax_b)/2\sqrt{2}.$$
(7)
The four-vector $`X`$ specifies where the hadron is located in space and time, while the variable $`x`$ measures the space-time separation between the quarks. In the convention of Feynman et al. , the internal motion of the quarks bound by a harmonic oscillator potential of unit strength can be described by the Lorentz-invariant equation

$$\frac{1}{2}\left\{x_\mu ^2\frac{^2}{x_\mu ^2}\right\}\psi (x)=\lambda \psi (x).$$
(8)
It is now possible to construct a representation of the Poincaré group from the solutions of the above differential equation .

The coordinate $`X`$ is associated with the overall hadronic four-momentum, and the space-time separation variable $`x`$ dictates the internal space-time symmetry or the $`O(3)`$-like little group. Thus, we should construct the representation of the little group from the solutions of the differential equation in Eq.(8). If the hadron is at rest, we can separate the $`t`$ variable from the equation. For this variable we can assign the ground-state wave function to accommodate the c-number time-energy uncertainty relation . For the three space-like variables, we can solve the oscillator equation in the spherical coordinate system with usual orbital and radial excitations. This will indeed constitute a representation of the $`O(3)`$-like little group for each value of the mass. The solution should take the form

$$\psi (x,y,z,t)=\psi (x,y,z)\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(t^2/2\right),$$
(9)
where $`\psi (x,y,z)`$ is the wave function for the three-dimensional oscillator with appropriate angular momentum quantum numbers. Indeed, the above wave function constitutes a representation of Wigner’s $`O(3)`$-like little group for a massive particle .

Since the three-dimensional oscillator differential equation is separable in both spherical and Cartesian coordinate systems, $`\psi (x,y,z)`$ consists of Hermite polynomials of $`x,y`$, and $`z`$. If the Lorentz boost is made along the $`z`$ direction, the $`x`$ and $`y`$ coordinates are not affected, and can be temporarily dropped from the wave function. The wave function of interest can be written as

$$\psi ^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\begin{array}{c}t^2/2\end{array}\right)\psi _n(z),$$
(10)
with

$$\psi ^n(z)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n(z)\mathrm{exp}(z^2/2),$$
(11)
where $`\psi ^n(z)`$ is for the $`n`$-th excited oscillator state. The full wave function $`\psi ^n(z,t)`$ is

$$\psi _0^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n(z)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(z^2+t^2\right)\right\}.$$
(12)
The subscript $`0`$ means that the wave function is for the hadron at rest. The above expression is not Lorentz-invariant, and its localization undergoes a Lorentz squeeze as the hadron moves along the $`z`$ direction .

It is convenient to use the light-cone variables to describe Lorentz boosts. The light-cone coordinate variables are

$$u=(z+t)/\sqrt{2},v=(zt)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(13)
In terms of these variables, the Lorentz boost along the $`z`$ direction,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}z^{}\\ t^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z\\ t\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
takes the simple form

$$u^{}=e^\eta u,v^{}=e^\eta v,$$
(15)
where $`\eta `$ is the boost parameter and is $`\mathrm{tanh}^1(v/c)`$. Indeed, the $`u`$ variable becomes expanded while the $`v`$ variable becomes contracted. This is the squeeze mechanism illustrated discussed extensively in the literature .

The wave function of Eq.(12) can be written as

$$\psi _o^n(z,t)=\psi _0^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n\left((u+v)/\sqrt{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2)\right\}.$$
(16)
If the system is boosted, the wave function becomes

$$\psi _\eta ^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n\left((e^\eta u+e^\eta v)/\sqrt{2}\right)\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }u^2+e^{2\eta }v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(17)
In both Eqs. (16) and (17), the localization property of the wave function in the $`uv`$ plane is determined by the Gaussian factor, and it is sufficient to study the ground state only for the essential feature of the boundary condition. The wave functions in Eq.(16) and Eq.(17) then respectively become

$$\psi _0(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2)\right\}.$$
(18)
If the system is boosted, the wave function becomes

$$\psi _\eta (z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }u^2+e^{2\eta }v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(19)
We note here that the transition from Eq.(18) to Eq.(19) is a squeeze transformation. The wave function of Eq.(18) is distributed within a circular region in the $`uv`$ plane, and thus in the $`zt`$ plane. On the other hand, the wave function of Eq.(19) is distributed in an elliptic region. This is how the wave function is Lorentz-boosted.

## 5 Feynman’s Parton Picture

It is safe to believe that hadrons are quantum bound states of quarks having localized probability distribution. As in all bound-state cases, this localization condition is responsible for the existence of discrete mass spectra. The most convincing evidence for this bound-state picture is the hadronic mass spectra which are observed in high-energy laboratories . However, this picture of bound states is applicable only to observers in the Lorentz frame in which the hadron is at rest. How would the hadrons appear to observers in other Lorentz frames?

In 1969, Feynman observed that a fast-moving hadron can be regarded as a collection of many “partons” whose properties do not appear to be identical to those of quarks . For example, the number of quarks inside a static proton is three, while the number of partons in a rapidly moving proton appears to be infinite. The question then is how the proton looking like a bound state of quarks to one observer can appear different to an observer in a different Lorentz frame? Feynman made the following systematic observations.

* The picture is valid only for hadrons moving with velocity close to that of light.
* The interaction time between the quarks becomes dilated, and partons behave as free independent particles.
* The momentum distribution of partons becomes widespread as the hadron moves very fast.
* The number of partons seems to be infinite or much larger than that of quarks.

Because the hadron is believed to be a bound state of two or three quarks, each of the above phenomena appears as a paradox, particularly b) and c) together. We would like to resolve this paradox using the covariant harmonic oscillator formalism.

For this purpose, we need a momentum-energy wave function. If the quarks have the four-momenta $`p_a`$ and $`p_b`$, we can construct two independent four-momentum variables

$$P=p_a+p_b,q=\sqrt{2}(p_ap_b).$$
(20)
The four-momentum $`P`$ is the total four-momentum and is thus the hadronic four-momentum. $`q`$ measures the four-momentum separation between the quarks.

We expect to get the momentum-energy wave function by taking the Fourier transformation of Eq.(19):

$$\varphi _\eta (q_z,q_0)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)\psi _\eta (z,t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(q_zzq_0t)\right\}𝑑x𝑑t.$$
(21)
Let us now define the momentum-energy variables in the light-cone coordinate system as

$$q_u=(q_0q_z)/\sqrt{2},q_v=(q_0+q_z)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(22)
In terms of these variables, the Fourier transformation of Eq.(21) can be written as

$$\varphi _\eta (q_z,q_0)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)\psi _\eta (z,t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(q_uu+q_vv)\right\}𝑑u𝑑v.$$
(23)
The resulting momentum-energy wave function is

$$\varphi _\eta (q_z,q_0)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }q_u^2+e^{2\eta }q_v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(24)
Since we are using the harmonic oscillator, the mathematical form of the above momentum-energy wave function is identical to that of the space-time wave function. The Lorentz squeeze properties of these wave functions are also the same, as are indicated in Fig. 1. These squeeze transformations perfectly consistent with the algorithms of the Poincaré group .

When the hadron is at rest with $`\eta =0`$, both wave functions behave like those for the static bound state of quarks. As $`\eta `$ increases, the wave functions become continuously squeezed until they become concentrated along their respective positive light-cone axes. Let us look at the z-axis projection of the space-time wave function. Indeed, the width of the quark distribution increases as the hadronic speed approaches that of the speed of light. The position of each quark appears widespread to the observer in the laboratory frame, and the quarks appear like free particles.

Furthermore, interaction time of the quarks among themselves become dilated. Because the wave function becomes wide-spread, the distance between one end of the harmonic oscillator well and the other end increases as is indicated in Fig. 1. This effect, first noted by Feynman , is universally observed in high-energy hadronic experiments. The period is oscillation is increases like $`e^\eta `$. On the other hand, the interaction time with the external signal, since it is moving in the direction opposite to the direction of the hadron, it travels along the negative light-cone axis. If the hadron contracts along the negative light-cone axis, the interaction time decreases by $`e^\eta `$. The ratio of the interaction time to the oscillator period becomes $`e^{2\eta }`$. The energy of each proton coming out of the Fermilab accelerator is $`900GeV`$. This leads the ratio to $`10^6`$. This is indeed a small number. The external signal is not able to sense the interaction of the quarks among themselves inside the hadron. This is the reason why the partons appear to be incoherent to external signals. Indeed, Feynman’s decoherence is an effect of the Lorentz covariance.

## Concluding Remarks

Due to Einstein, this world, at least the physics world, became Lorentz-covariant. The lack of coherence in Feynman’s parton picture is the most puzzling question in covariance. It is a pleasure to report that Wigner’s formulation of the internal space-time symmetries of relativistic particles provide a resolution to this problem.

In this report, we discussed Wigner’s 1939 paper on the representations of the Poincaré group. Wigner wrote many other papers. They were also discussed at this conference. We are grateful to Professors Joszef Janszky and Peter Adam for organizing this historical conference. The author would like to thank Jiri Kvita for pointing out an typographical error in the original version.


format: text

text:
# Duality and interacting families in models with the inverse-squared interaction

## I Introduction

Duality is an important generalization of symmetry for studying relations between seemingly different theories. This symmetry is as old as the Maxwell equation, where it appeared for the first time. In field theory and in theories in higher dimensions there is a web of various dualities between several theories. With more degrees of freedom, duality is enlarged. With the exception of spin systems, there exist the Calogero C , the Sutherland S  and the Moser M  type of rare quantum-mechanical models with duality properties. These are weak-strong coupling dualities, which relate various physical quantities depending on the constants of the interaction $`\lambda `$ and $`1/\lambda `$. These symmetries were found for the Sutherland G ; MP1  model and the Calogero model without harmonic interaction AJ . Our purpose here is to demonstrate that the duality of the same type operates in the Calogero model with harmonic interaction. Then there is an efficient use of duality relations to solve the old problem of interacting families of particles, including the inverse-squared interaction acting between particles belonging to different families, as well as betwen particles belonging to the same family with strength that may be different for different families C .

The system under consideration is described by the Hamiltonian

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\lambda (\lambda 1)}{(x_ix_j)^2}+\frac{\omega ^2}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(x_ix_j)^2,$$
(1)
which has been solved, both classically OP  and quantum-mechanically, and has been intensively studied. This system is also related to one-matrix models MBIPZ ; AJL  and to two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory MP2 . In the large-N limit, the system possesses soliton states JPABJ  which are related to edge states in the quantum Hall system KAI  and the Chern-Simons theory ABJ . The models are also relevant to two-dimensional gravity GT  and to the Seiberg-Witten theory HP . There is a remarkable connection with the physics of the black hole. The behavior near the horizon of the black hole is described by (1). Further analyzes based on (1) have been used to explore horizon states GSV ; BGS  and shed light on black hole thermodynamics BGS . In solving (1) we have restricted our attention to the case where the coupling $`\lambda (\lambda 1)`$ is not strongly negative, in order to avoid the ’fall to the center’. The case of the strong coupling region has been analyzed using renormalization group techniques GR  and a new bound state appears. The Calogero solution was found assuming the vanishing of the wave function when coordinates of any two particles coincide. Such a boundary condition is represented by the Jastrow factor $`_{i<j}(x_ix_j)^\lambda `$. A more general boundary condition leads to new bound states GR ; BMGG .

## II $`so(2,1)`$ algebra

We shall determine the eigenvalues and eigenstates of (1) by constructing the representation of a spectrum generating algebra, similarly as it was done in Refs.AJ ; GMP . Owing to the translational invariance of the model we should introduce completely invariant variables P :

$$\xi _ix_iX,X=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}x_i,\frac{}{\xi _i}\xi _j=\delta _{ij}\frac{1}{N}.$$
(2)
The wave function of the problem will contain the Jastrow factor . Therefore, it is convenient to perform a similarity transformation of the Hamiltonian into $`(\mathrm{}=1,m=1)`$

$$\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(x_ix_j)^\lambda \left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\lambda (\lambda 1)}{(x_ix_j)^2}\right]\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(x_ix_j)^\lambda =$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)}\left(\frac{}{x_i}\frac{}{x_j}\right).$$
(3)
Eliminating the center-of-mass degrees of freedom we obtain the generator of time translation

$$T_+=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{\xi _i^2}+\frac{\lambda }{2}\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{(\xi _i\xi _j)}\left(\frac{}{\xi _i}\frac{}{\xi _j}\right)$$
(4)
and the generators of scale and special conformal transformations, respectively, are

$$T_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\xi _i\frac{}{\xi _i}+E_0\frac{1}{2}\right),T_{}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\xi _i^2.$$
(5)
Using Eqs.(4,5) we can verify that

$$[T_+,T_{}]=2T_0,[T_0,T_\pm ]=\pm T_\pm .$$
(6)
This is the $`so(2,1)su(1,1)`$ algebra. In the definition of the operator $`T_0`$ the constant $`E_0`$ is $`E_0=\frac{\lambda }{2}N(N1)+\frac{N}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ appears after removing the center-of-mass degrees of freedom. The important solution found by Calogero are zero-energy solutions $`P_m`$:

$$T_+P_m(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _N)=0,T_0P_m=\mu _mP_m,$$
(7)
where $`\mu _m=\frac{1}{2}\left(m+E_0\frac{1}{2}\right)`$. Calogero has proved that the zero-energy solutions $`P_m(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _N)`$ are scale and translationally invariant homogeneous polynomials of degree $`m`$, written in the center-of-mass variables. Now we shall express the Hamiltonian (1) in terms of the generators (4) and (5). Performing the similarity transformation (3) on the Hamiltonian (1) and eliminating CM degrees of freedom we obtain

$$\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(\xi _i\xi _j)^\lambda \frac{1}{\omega }\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{\xi _i^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\lambda (\lambda 1)}{(\xi _i\xi _j)^2}+\frac{\omega ^2}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\xi _i^2\right]\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(\xi _i\xi _j)^\lambda =\frac{1}{\omega }T_++\omega T_{}2L_0.$$
(8)
The diagonalization of the Hamiltonian (1) can be achieved by diagonalizing $`L_0`$. In addition to $`L_0`$ we introduce raising and lowering operators AFF :

$$L_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\omega }T_++\omega T_{}\right)\pm T_0,$$
(9)
which satisfy commutation relations of the $`so(2,1)`$ algebra:

$$[L_0,L_\pm ]=\pm L_\pm ,[L_+,L_{}]=2L_0.$$
(10)
The $`L`$ operators are ’rotated’ $`T`$ operators:

$$L_0=ST_0S^1,L_\pm =(2\omega )^{\pm 1}ST_{}S^1,$$
(11)
where

$$S=e^{\omega T_{}}e^{\frac{1}{2\omega }T_+}.$$
(12)
From these equations we derive that a new set of vacuua are ’rotated’ $`T`$-vacuua:

$$|0,\mu _m=SP_m=e^{\omega T_{}}P_m,$$
(13)
such that

$$L_{}|0,\mu _m=0$$
(14)
and

$$L_0|0,\mu _m=\mu _{}|0,\mu _m.$$
(15)
The value of the Casimir operator

$$J^2=L_+L_{}+L_0(L_01)$$
(16)
on those vacuua is

$$J^2|0,\mu _m=\mu _m(\mu _m+1)|0,\mu _m.$$
(17)
We shall diagonalize $`L_0`$ in terms of $`T_{}`$ variables, assuming that eigenstates are functions $`l(T_{})`$ acting on the vacuum. From the eigenvalue equation

$$L_0l(T_{})|0,\mu _m=El(T_{})|0,\mu _m,$$
(18)
we obtain the operator equation

$$T_{}l^{\prime \prime }+(2\mu _m2\omega T_{})l^{}+(2\mu _m\omega +\omega E)l=0,$$
(19)
by use of Eq.(9) and the formula from Ref.AJ , valid for the function of $`T_{}`$:

$$[T_+,f(T_{})]=T_{}f^{\prime \prime }(T_{})2f^{}(T_{})T_0.$$
(20)
Solutions of Eq.(18) are the well-known Laguerre polynomials:

$$lL_n^{2\mu _m1}(2\omega T_{})$$
(21)
with the eigenvalues $`n\mu _m`$:

$$L_0L_n^{2\mu _m1}(2\omega T_{})|0,\mu _m=(n\mu _m)L_n^{2\mu _m1}(2\omega T_{})|0,\mu _m.$$
(22)
In terms of the raising operators $`L_+`$, the diagonalization of $`L_0`$ is achieved by

$$L_0L_+^n|0,\mu _m=(n\mu _m)L_+^n|0,\mu _m.$$
(23)
This result is identical to Eq.(18) because acting on a vacuum, the raising operators develop a Laguerre polynomial in $`2\omega T_{}`$ owing to

$$L_+^n|0,\mu _m=S(2\omega T_{})^nP_m=e^{\omega T_{}}e^{\frac{1}{2\omega }T_+}(2\omega T_{})^nP_m=L_n^{2\mu _m1}(2\omega T_{})|0,\mu _m.$$
(24)
## III Duality

weak-strong coupling duality relations for the Sutherland model were first established for the Hamiltonians in Refs. G ; MP1  and used to relate the dynamical density correlation function for the coupling constants $`\lambda `$ and $`\frac{1}{\lambda }`$. In Ref. AJ  duality relations were used to solve the problem of interacting families. From previous investigations in Ref.JPABJ  we know that duality maps particles into holes, so the wave function should contain the prefactor of the form

$$(xz)^\kappa =\underset{i,\alpha =1}{\overset{N,M}{}}(x_iz_\alpha )^\kappa ,\begin{array}{c}i=1,\mathrm{},N\hfill \\ \alpha =1,\mathrm{},M\hfill \end{array},$$
(25)
where $`z_\alpha `$ denotes $`M`$ zeros of the wave function describing the positions of $`M`$ holes. Let us recall the relevant duality relations found in Ref.AJ :

$$T_0(x,\lambda )(xz)^\kappa =\left\{T_0(z,\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda })\frac{1}{2}\left[\kappa MN+ϵ_0(N,\lambda )+ϵ_0(M,\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda })\right]\right\}(xz)^\kappa ,$$

$$T_+(x,\lambda )(xz)^\kappa =\left[\frac{\lambda }{\kappa }T_+(z,\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda })+\frac{1+\frac{\lambda }{\kappa }}{2}\underset{i,\alpha =1}{\overset{N,M}{}}\frac{\kappa (\kappa 1)}{(x_iz_\alpha )^2}\right](xz)^\kappa ,$$
(26)
where $`T_{0,\pm }(z,\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda })`$ denotes an operator with the same functional depedence on $`z_\alpha `$ as that of the operator $`T_{0,\pm }(x,\lambda )`$ on $`x_i`$ and with the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ replaced by $`\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }`$. Let us remind that solving of the problems of the Calogero type requires just Eq.(7) to be satisfied. From duality relations we can construct generators for both families from $`T(x)`$’s and $`T(z)`$’s:

$$𝒯_+=T_+(x,\lambda )+\frac{\lambda }{\kappa }T_+(z,\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda })\frac{(\lambda +\kappa )(\kappa 1)}{2}\underset{i,\alpha =1}{\overset{N,M}{}}\frac{\kappa (\kappa 1)}{(x_iz_\alpha )^2},$$

$$𝒯_0=T_0(x,\lambda )+T_0(z,\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }),$$

$$𝒯_{}=T_{}(x,\lambda )+\frac{\kappa }{\lambda }T_{}(z,\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }).$$
(27)
These generators satisfy the $`so(2,1)`$ algebra in spite of the extension by the interaction term:

$$[𝒯_+,𝒯_{}]=2𝒯_0,[𝒯_0,𝒯_\pm ]=\pm 𝒯_\pm .$$
(28)
The duality relations (26) in terms of the generators $`𝒯_{0,\pm }`$ turn out to be a sufficient condition for solving models of the Calogero type with two families. The action of $`𝒯`$’s on $`(xz)^\kappa `$ is given by

$$𝒯_+(xz)^\kappa =0,$$
(29)
$$𝒯_0(xz)^\kappa =\frac{(N+M)(\kappa +1)2}{4}(xz)^\kappa .$$
(30)
The states on which duality relations are displayed are prefactors of the ground-state wave function. To diagonalize the problem of two families with harmonic interaction, we ’rotate’ the generators (28) according to Eq.(11) to obtain $``$ operators:

$$_0=𝒮𝒯_0𝒮^1,_\pm =(2\omega )^{\pm 1}𝒮𝒯_{}𝒮^1,$$
(31)
where

$$𝒮=e^{\omega 𝒯_{}}e^{\frac{1}{2\omega }𝒯_+}.$$
(32)
The ground state is given by

$$_{}𝒮(xz)=0$$
(33)
and the discrete states of $`_0`$ are given by

$$_0_+^n|0,\mathrm{\Pi }=(n\mu )_+^n|0,\mathrm{\Pi },$$
(34)
or in terms of the Laguerre polynomials

$$L_n^{2\mu _\kappa 1}(2\omega 𝒯_{}).$$
(35)
We interpret the $`_0(x,z)=𝒮𝒯_0(x,z)𝒮^1`$ as a Hamiltonian (up to similarity transformation) for two interacting families. After performing similarity transformation we obtain

$$H=2\underset{\alpha <\beta }{\overset{M}{}}(z_\alpha z_\beta )^{\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }}\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(x_ix_j)^\lambda _0\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(x_ix_j)^\lambda \underset{\alpha <\beta }{\overset{M}{}}(z_\alpha z_\beta )^{\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{\omega }\{[\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\lambda (\lambda 1)}{(x_ix_j)^2}+\frac{\omega ^2}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}x_i^2]+$$

$$+\frac{\lambda }{\kappa }\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{^2}{z_\alpha ^2}+\frac{\kappa ^2}{2\lambda }\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }1\right)\underset{\alpha \beta }{\overset{M}{}}\frac{1}{(z_\alpha z_\beta )^2}+\frac{\omega ^2\kappa ^2}{2\lambda ^2}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}z_\alpha ^2\right]+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\lambda }{\kappa })\underset{i,\alpha }{\overset{N,M}{}}\frac{\kappa (\kappa 1)}{(x_iz_\alpha )^2}\}.$$
(36)
The wave function of this two-family system is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,z,n)\underset{\alpha <\beta }{\overset{M}{}}(z_\alpha z_\beta )^{\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }}\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}(x_ix_j)^\lambda \underset{i,\alpha =1}{\overset{N,M}{}}(x_iz_\alpha )^\kappa L_n^{2\mu _\kappa 1}(2\omega 𝒯_{}).$$
(37)
The Hamiltonian (36) describes two families in interaction. The first family has particles with masses all equal to 1 and the coupling parameter $`\lambda `$. In the second family, particles have masses $`\frac{\kappa }{\lambda }`$ and the coupling parameter is $`\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }`$. Both physical parameters of the second family are of nonperturbative origin. Now it is straightforward to construct new families. Each new family will appear when the new prefactor in the zero-energy solution is introduced and new extended duality relations for $`T_+`$ and $`T_0`$ are established. A new $`𝒯_+`$ generator will be enlarged with an additional singular interaction. These interactions have the same scaling dimensions as the kinetic term, so the commutation relations of the type $`[𝒯_0,𝒯_+]=𝒯_+`$ will remain the same even if $`𝒯_0`$ is also enlarged. We construct $`𝒯_{}`$ by adding the corresponding $`T_{}`$’s in order to keep $`so(2,1)`$ algebra commutation relations unchanged. A new master Hamiltonian is obtained, after performing similarity transformation with an appropriate product of Jastrow factors from $`_0`$ which is ’$`𝒮`$-rotated’ $`𝒯_0`$.

## IV Conclusion

Using the $`so(2,1)`$ algebra and its generators we have first given an algebraic/group theoretical rederivation of known results on the Calogero model with harmonic interaction. It closely follows the exposition of de Alfaro et al. AFF . This algebraic treatment was also used in the analyzis of the magnetic monopole and the vortex Jac . We have then demonstrated that there exists the duality relations formulated in terms of the generators. This has enabled us to construct the master Hamiltonian for the problem of two interacting families and to construct a unique vacuum. This algebraic approach can be generalized to other variants of the Calogero-Sutherland-Moser type of models.

## Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully aknowledge the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Fundation. This work is done under contract No.0098003 supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia.


text:
# A note on the time evolution of the fission decay width under the influence of dissipation

(June 2, 2003)

## Abstract

The claim put forward in a recent paper by B. Jurado, K.-H. Schmidt and J. Benlliure that the transient effect of nuclear fission may be described simply as a relaxation process in the upright oscillator around the potential minimum is refuted. Some critical remarks on the relevance of this effect in general are added.

In the paper  it has been claimed that ”a new, highly realistic analytical approximation to the exact solution of the Fokker-Planck equation” has been presented. In this note we should like to raise some questions about the justifications of the approximations used there, in particular with respect to its application to the decay of a meta-stable state. Before we address details of the approach a few remarks of more general nature are in order.

It has become customary to look at nuclear fission as a time dependent process. As the current $`j_b`$ across the barrier shows a ”transient behavior”, simply because it takes some finite time before $`j_b`$ reaches a quasi stationary value, one likes to interpret the result in terms of a time dependent decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{f}(t)`$, modifying in this way the one originally deduced by Kramers using essentially the same picture. This transient time seemingly implies a delay of fission during which light particles might be emitted in addition to those given by the conventional ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{f}^{\text{st}}`$ of the partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ for neutron evaporation to the stationary value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{f}^{\text{st}}`$ for fission, even if for the latter the Bohr-Wheeler expression $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{BW}}`$ is replaced by the smaller value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{K}`$ of Kramers’ rate formula. In arguments in favor of such a procedure it is often claimed that the time dependence comes in only if fission is considered as a transport process underlying dissipative forces. In this one forgets that the transition state method is also based on ”collective motion” which, in principle, like particle emission, is a time dependent event. It is only that for these processes one has become accustomed to apply widths calculated in a time in-dependent picture, in which, in addition, inherent averaging procedures are applied. Truth is that also Kramers’ rate formula does not represent anything other than an inverse average decay time. This can directly be seen by exploiting the concept of the ”mean first passage time” (MFPT). For over-damped motion an analytic formula for the $`\tau _{\text{mfpt}}`$ can be derived from which, under the usual conditions for Kramers’ rate formula, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{K}=\mathrm{}/\tau _{\text{mfpt}}`$, see e.g.. Interestingly enough, the value of the $`\tau _{\text{mfpt}}`$ does not depend much on the initial position of the system, in clear distinction to the transient effect . In  and  the concept of the MFPT has been applied to nuclear fission to examine, for the limit of over-damped motion, if more light particles may be emitted than given by the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{K}`$. In  it has been demonstrated that Kramers’ rate formula is valid only for simple potentials and under favorable conditions for the temperature. For potentials having some structure in addition to just one pronounced minimum and one barrier the fission lifetime was seen to be considerably longer than the $`\tau _\text{K}=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{K}`$ associated to Kramers’ rate. This feature may already by inferred from the form

$$\tau _\text{K}=\frac{2\pi \gamma }{\sqrt{C_\text{a}|C_\text{b}|}}\mathrm{exp}(E_\text{b}/T)$$
(1)
the $`\tau _\text{K}`$ takes on for over-damped motion. Any uncertainty in the product of the two stiffnesses at the minimum and the barrier, $`C_\text{a}`$ and $`C_\text{b}`$, respectively, reflects itself in a corresponding error of their geometric mean, and hence in $`\tau _\text{K}`$. Indeed, these stiffnesses are known at best in the immediate neighborhood of the extrema. Realistically, however, the potentials are hardly symmetric about these extrema. In cases that beyond the top of the barrier, for instance, the potential becomes wider this property may effectively imply a smaller $`|C_\text{b}|`$ and, hence, a larger value of $`\tau _\text{K}`$.

We agree with the authors of  that the understanding of nuclear dissipation is of great importance, in particular its variation with shape and temperature. After all, these are perhaps the decisive features through which different models or theories of nuclear transport can be distinguished . It may perhaps be of interest to mention that, in addition to the papers cited in , quite some work has been done, both experimentally  as well as theoretically , in which such questions have specifically been addressed.

The main concern of  is that in previous analyses of experimental results uncertainties of a factor of two showed up in the so called reduced friction coefficient $`\beta `$. There can be no question that the ultimate goal must be to improve our understanding about this problem, but it is questionable that the uncertainties and ambiguities of the method used in  imply progress. To begin with, one should not trace all problems back to just the one constant $`\beta `$. Even discarding possible inaccuracies in the height of the barrier, which enters the decay rate in exponential fashion, there are crucial problems with the transport coefficients themselves. The $`\beta `$, for instance, only stands for the ratio of friction $`\gamma `$ to inertia $`M`$. For obvious physical reasons, these two quantities must be expected to exhibit a totally different variation with temperature. Moreover, for a coordinate dependent inertia, Kramers’ formula has to get an additional factor involving the square root of the ratio of the inertias at barrier and minimum . For truly over-damped motion, on the other hand, any quantity which involves the inertia looses any meaning. Indeed, the latter does not appear in formula (1).

Let us turn now to the more formal problems of . The authors aim at delivering a simple way of calculating the time dependent pre-factor which supposedly relates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{f}(t)`$ to Kramers’ stationary value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{K}`$. The essential approximation is to calculate this pre-factor not from a global solution of Kramers’ equation, which would properly account for the motion across the barrier, but from a solution of the same transport equation restricted to the upright oscillator by which the fission potential may be approximated in the neighborhood of the minimum. A moments reflection tells one that at the barrier, where the current $`j_b`$ is to be calculated, the height of the artificial potential in this region may easily exceed the barrier height several times. The very fact that in this region the stiffness of this auxiliary potential has the wrong sign is most crucial for the current, in particular at large times. Whereas for the inverted oscillator the $`j_b(t)`$ eventually turns into the stationary one already found by Kramers, the current for an upright oscillator tends to zero exponentially. In other words, replacing already in (-6) (which is to say in eq.(6) of ref.) the correct distribution $`W_n`$ by the one for an upright oscillator, called $`W^{\text{par}}`$ in eq.(-9), leads to a vanishing denominator in this basic formula.

To circumvent this problem some intermediate steps are performed to finally end up with formula (-8) for which the $`W^{\text{par}}`$ of (-9) is to be inserted. One basic assumption for this is specified in eq.(-7). It implies that, for any time $`t`$ and at the barrier top, the dependence of the distribution on coordinate and velocity is identical to the one at infinite time. For an oscillator this statement is easily seen to be incorrect, both for under-damped as well as for over-damped motion (for which it is claimed to be exact). Take the distribution given in (-9), namely111It is properly normalized, also in the sense of eq.(-5) if one only makes the common assumptions that $`x_b`$ is sufficiently far away from the minimum such that the tiny tail beyond $`x_b`$ does not influence the normalization integral.

$$W^{\text{par}}(x=x_b;t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma (t)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x_b^2}{2\sigma ^2(t)}\right),$$
(2)
which for an oscillator delivers the correct form for the density in coordinate space. For over-damped motion this statement is evident, for under-damped motion one first needs to integrate over velocity. Putting the form (2) into (-7) the $`C(t)`$ of (-7) turns out to be

$$C(t)=\frac{\sigma (t\mathrm{})}{\sigma (t)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x_b^2}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\sigma ^2(t)}\frac{1}{\sigma ^2(t\mathrm{})}\right]\right),$$
(3)
which evidently is not only a function of time but varies with $`x_b`$. As the upright and inverted oscillator turn into each other by analytic continuation (changing only the sign of the stiffness)  the proof just given also applies to the motion of a Gaussian across a barrier, if simulated by a parabola.

For the $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ needed for the $`W^{\text{par}}(x=x_b;t)`$ of eq.(2) a form is given in eq.(-10) which corresponds to zero initial width. On the other hand, the authors claim it to be more suitable to start from ground state fluctuations and they try to simulate this feature by introducing222It remains unclear why the authors did not simple generalize the analytic form (-10) to one valid for any initial condition, such as (7), shown below for over-damped motion. a time shift $`t_0`$. It is meant to represent the ”time shift needed for the probability distribution to reach the width of the zero-point motion in deformation space”, which is supposed to be ”equal to the time that the average energy of the collective degree of freedom needs to reach the value $`(1/2)\mathrm{}\omega _1`$ associated to the zero-point motion”. Obviously, the authors seem to understand $`t_0`$ as a kind of relaxation time to the equilibrium of the oscillator, as represented by the ground state. It may be noted in passing that for a genuine quantum system any application of (-10) is prohibited anyway as the distribution can never have zero width. In any case, it remains unclear why it should be the ground state and, hence, why there is no influence of the large intrinsic excitations which are produced in the first stage of the reaction; after all the authors work with a finite temperature.

At this stage it may be worth while to remind the reader of some basic features of transport theory, which may help to clarify a few critical steps used in . To begin with, let us look how quantum features may be accounted for. As it stands, eq.(-10) describes relaxation to the equilibrium specified by the equipartition theorem of classical mechanics, represented here by the pre-factor of the curly bracket. For a damped oscillator this may be generalized to represent quantum fluctuations correctly (see e.g. ). In equilibrium they are not given by those of the ground state $`\mathrm{}/2\mu \omega _1`$ used here, for instance in eq.(-12). In fact for over-damped motion just the opposite is true: there the correct quantum equilibrium is indeed given by the classical limit, see  for the oscillator and  for the general case.

Let us examine now the derivation of eq.(-12), $`t_0=\mathrm{}\beta /(4\omega _1T)`$, meant to determine the time lapse $`t_0`$. This equation is obtained by assuming a linear dependence between the $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ and time $`t`$. This approximation is justified by arguing that the ”influence of the potential on the diffusion process” may be ”neglected” as it ”is anyhow small in the range of the zero-point motion”. To see the catch in this argument let us simply write the correct equation for $`\sigma ^2(t)`$, as it comes out of the Smoluchowski equation for the oscillator:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\sigma ^2(t)+2\frac{C}{\gamma }\sigma ^2(t)=2D_{\text{ovd}}.$$
(4)
Here, $`C`$ is the stiffness of the potential $`U(x)`$, such that the latter may be written as

$$U(x)=\frac{C}{2}x^2\text{with}C=\mu \omega _1^2,$$
(5)
and $`D_{\text{ovd}}`$ is the diffusion coefficient, which according to (4) is determined by the equilibrium fluctuation $`\sigma ^2`$ through

$$D_{\text{ovd}}=\frac{C}{\gamma }\sigma ^2(t\mathrm{})\frac{C}{\gamma }\sigma _{\text{eq}}^2\frac{T}{\gamma }.$$
(6)
Eq.(4) implies that the ”influence of the potential on the diffusion process” is given by the second term on the left which has the same size independent of the ”range” of the coordinate. The solution of eq.(4) for $`t0`$ is given by

$$\sigma ^2(t)=\left(\sigma ^2(t=0)\sigma _{\text{eq}}^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2C}{\gamma }t\right)+\sigma _{\text{eq}}^2,$$
(7)
showing that relaxation to the equilibrium value happens on the time scale $`\tau _{\text{ovd}}=\gamma /2C`$ independent of the initial fluctuation. Of course, for $`t\tau _{\text{ovd}}`$ and zero initial fluctuations the $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ becomes linear in $`t`$, but the reason why such a $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ should be identified as the ground state fluctuation of the undamped oscillator remains unclear. Put in the context mentioned above: it is unclear why such a value of $`\sigma ^2(t)\mathrm{}/2\mu \omega _1`$ should be relevant if reached by a process of strong damping.

Next we turn to the value found for $`t_0`$ from eq.(-12). It turns out so small that the introduction of this quantity and the associated fluctuation cannot explain why the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(t)`$ starts to become finite only at about $`0.710^{21}`$ s. Indeed, for $`\beta =210^{21}\text{s}^1`$, $`\mathrm{}\omega _1=1`$ MeV and $`T=3`$ MeV one gets the very small number of $`t_00.0610^{21}`$ s. The explanation given in  comes much closer: There, by simulating the whole fission process by a Langevin equation, it was demonstrated that such a shift is related to the relaxation of the initial distribution to the quasi-equilibrium in the minimum. For the numbers just used the relaxation time $`\tau _{\text{ovd}}`$ becomes $`\tau _{\text{ovd}}0.3610^{21}`$ s — provided one makes use of the relation (5). The value of $`\tau _{\text{ovd}}`$ becomes even very close to the $`0.710^{21}`$ s at which in Fig.-1 the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{f}(t)`$ is seen to rise if the relation of frequency to stiffness is replaced by the in-correct one given in equation (-13) where the stiffness $`K`$ is assumed to be only half the correct value given in (5), in accord with the common definition used in text books not only on nuclear physics but on classical and quantum mechanics as well. It is true that, for the cases discussed in Fig.-1, the motion is not really over-damped (for $`\mathrm{}\omega _1=1`$), but the $`\tau _{\text{ovd}}`$ may nevertheless be taken as a fair estimate.

As indicated before, it is left unclear why in the general case the system should start with a small fluctuation. Indeed, formula (-8) together with (-9) implies any transient effect (of the type discussed here) to be absent if one chooses to start out of the quasi-equilibrium, which is to say for $`W^{par}(x=x_b,t=0)=W^{par}(x=x_b,t\mathrm{})`$. For a bound system, like the upright oscillator, such an initial condition implies that the system stays in equilibrium for ever. For over-damped motion this may be seen from eq.(7) together with (2). For a meta-stable situation like fission, on the other hand, the situation is different: then there will be a finite current outwards. Exactly this feature is not described correctly by formulas (-8) and (-9). Please recall that in many cases an initial condition like that of the quasi-equilibrium specified before is not at all unrealistic. For sufficiently large fission barriers, as they are required for Kramers’s rate formula anyhow, the system may well have enough time to reach such a stage around the first well before it decays by fission.

Let us finally comment on the feature that for certain cases the present construction seems to represent fairly well the numerically obtained global solutions of the transport equation for the full fission potential. In our opinion this feature should be considered accidental rather than supply a decent basis for trustworthy applications in future work of the approximations advertised in this paper. There are simply too many inconsistencies to warrant applicability to the general case.


text:
# Singlet-triplet transition in a lateral quantum dot

## Abstract

We study transport through a lateral quantum dot in the vicinity of the singlet-triplet transition in its ground state. This transition, being sharp in an isolated dot, is broadened to a crossover by the exchange interaction of the dot electrons with the conduction electrons in the leads. For a generic set of system’s parameters, the linear conductance has a maximum in the crossover region. At zero temperature and magnetic field, the maximum is the strongest. It becomes less pronounced at finite Zeeman splitting, which leads to an increase of the background conductance and a decrease of the conductance in the maximum.

The Kondo effect in transport through quantum dots manifests itself in a dramatic increase of the linear conductance at temperatures below a certain characteristic scale $`T_K`$ (the Kondo temperature). In the simplest case kondo , a quantum dot behaves essentially as a magnetic impurity with spin 1/2 coupled via exchange interaction to two conducting leads GP\_review . However, the energy scale for intradot excitations is much smaller than the corresponding scale for real magnetic impurities. Moreover, the tunability of this scale in quantum dot devices allows one to explore various flavors of the Kondo effect inaccessible with usual magnetic impurities induced\_review .

A transition between singlet and triplet states in an almost isolated dot was demonstrated Tarucha  in a “vertical” device. At stronger dot-lead tunneling, the conductance across the dot has a pronounced maximum at the singlet-triplet transition Sasaki . The maximum can be interpreted induced\_review ; EN ; ST  as the Kondo effect with the Kondo temperature enhanced in the vicinity of the transition. In this paper, we investigate the conductance in a “lateral” quantum dot device in the vicinity of a singlet-triplet transition. The presented below theory of the Kondo effect in such devices may help in the interpretation of the recent experiments vanderWiel ; Kogan .

The main difference between vertical dots and lateral ones is that in the latter case the number of electronic modes coupled to a quantum dot is well defined. A lateral quantum dot is formed by gate depletion of a two-dimensional electron gas at the interface between two semiconductors. In this geometry the dot-leads junctions act as electronic waveguides. Potentials on the gates control the waveguide width, and, therefore, the number of propagating electronic modes the waveguides support: by making the waveguide narrower one pinches the propagating modes off. When the very last propagating mode nears its pinch-off, the system enters the Coulomb blockade regime. Accordingly, in this regime each dot-lead junction supports a single electronic mode MF .

Typically, the charging energy of the dot $`E_C`$ is large compared to the mean single-particle level spacing in it, $`\delta E`$, which in turn guarantees GP\_review  that $`\delta E`$ is large compared to $`T_K`$: $`T_K\delta EE_C`$. This separation of the energy scales allows us to simplify the problem further by assuming that conductances of the dot-lead junctions are small. The simplification will not affect the properties of the system in the Kondo regime as long as $`T_K`$ remains the smallest energy scale in the problem. On the other hand, the coupling between the dot and the leads can now be described within the tunneling Hamiltonian framework. The microscopic Hamiltonian of the system can then be written as a sum of three distinct terms,

$$H=H_{\mathrm{leads}}+H_{\mathrm{dot}}+H_{\mathrm{tunneling}},$$
(1)
which describe, respectively, free electrons in the leads, isolated quantum dot, and the tunneling between the dot and the leads. With only one electronic mode for each dot-lead junction taken into account, the first and the third terms in the r.h.s. of Eq. (1) become

$`H_{\mathrm{leads}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ks}{}}\xi _k^{}c_{\alpha ks}^{}c_{\alpha ks}^{},\alpha =R,L`$ (2)
$`H_{\mathrm{tunneling}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha nks}{}}t_{\alpha n}^{}c_{\alpha ks}^{}d_{ns}^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3)
A generic model of an isolated quantum dot \[the second term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (1)\] can be written as ABG

$$H_{\mathrm{dot}}=\underset{ns}{}ϵ_n^{}d_{ns}^{}d_{ns}^{}+E_C\left(\widehat{N}𝒩\right)^2E_S\widehat{𝑺}^2B\widehat{S}^z,$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{N}=_{ns}d_{ns}^{}d_{ns}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑺}=\frac{1}{2}_{nss^{}}d_{ns}^{}\widehat{𝝈}_{ss^{}}d_{ns^{}}^{}`$ are operators of the total number of electrons on the dot, and of the dot’s spin, respectively. The parameter $`𝒩`$ in Eq. (4) is proportional to the potential on the capacitively coupled gate electrode and controls the number of electrons, $`N=\widehat{N}`$, on the dot. We will assume that $`𝒩`$ is tuned to a Coulomb blockade valley with an even number of electrons $`N`$. The third term in Eq. (4) describes exchange interaction within the dot. Finally, the last term in Eq. (4) represents the Zeeman effect of an external magnetic field, with $`B`$ being the Zeeman energy.

We consider a dot in a state far from the ferromagnetic instability ABG : the exchange energy $`E_S`$ is small compared to the mean level spacing $`\delta E`$. Under this condition the ground state of an isolated dot with even $`N`$ is almost always a singlet. The only exception occurs when the level spacing $`\epsilon =ϵ_{+1}ϵ_1`$ between the highest occupied ($`n=1`$) and the lowest empty ($`n=+1`$) single-particle energy levels is anomalously small, $`\epsilon E_S\delta E`$. The gain in the exchange energy associated with a formation of the triplet state may then be sufficient to overcome the loss in the kinetic energy (cf. the Hund’s rule in atomic physics). The triplet state is formed through a redistribution of two electrons between the levels $`n=\pm 1`$. Since for an isolated dot the occupation $`_sd_{ns}^{}d_{ns}^{}`$ on each single-particle energy level is a constant of motion, the redistribution must involve tunneling between the levels $`n=\pm 1`$ and the leads. At low energies ($`B,T\delta E`$) tunneling to all other ($`n\pm 1`$) energy levels can be neglected in the vicinity of the singlet-triplet transition ($`\epsilon E_S`$). Accordingly, in this regime the Hamiltonian of the dot Eq. (4) can then be further truncated to that of a two-level system with $`𝒩=2`$ and

$$ϵ_n=n\epsilon /2,n=\pm 1.$$
(5)
In quantum dot systems based on GaAs the value of $`\epsilon `$ can be controlled by a magnetic field $`H_{}`$ applied perpendicular to the plane of the dot Sasaki ; vanderWiel . Because of the smallness of the electron effective mass, even a weak field $`H_{}`$ has a very strong orbital effect. At the same time, smallness of g-factor in GaAs ensures that the corresponding Zeeman splitting remains small induced\_review . By linearizing $`\epsilon (H_{})`$ in the vicinity of the transition, one can make a direct comparison of the experimental data with the (calculated) linear conductance across the system $`G=(2e^2/h)g(\epsilon )`$. In addition, one can apply a strong in-plane field $`H_{}`$, which would allow the study of the conductance dependence on Zeeman energy $`B`$. The temperature ($`T`$) and field ($`B`$) dependences of the linear conductance, and the bias dependence of the differential conductance are qualitatively similar to each other. However, the dependence $`g(\epsilon ,B)`$ at $`T=0`$ is easier to calculate, and it is this function we address here.

Tunneling, see Eq. (3), couples the two-level system, Eqs. (4) and (5), to the two leads. The four tunneling amplitudes $`t_{\alpha ,\pm 1}`$ form a $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$$\widehat{t}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_{L,+1}& t_{R,+1}\\ t_{L,1}& t_{R,1}\end{array}\right).$$

In the special case when one of the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{t}`$ is zero, while another one is finite HS , the dot effectively interacts only with a single species (a single “channel”) of conduction electrons. A single channel can screen only half of the dot’s spin when it is in the triplet state NB . Accordingly, the system should exhibit a quantum phase transition VBH : the ground state changes its symmetry from a singlet to a doublet as $`\epsilon `$ decreases below a certain value, $`\epsilon _CE_S`$. The conductance is then strongly $`\epsilon `$-dependent HS : $`g(\epsilon ,0)\theta (\epsilon _C\epsilon )`$. At $`\epsilon <\epsilon _C`$ (when the dot is in the triplet state) the conductance is a monotonically decreasing function of $`B`$, while at $`\epsilon >\epsilon _C`$ the conductance first increases, and then drops with the increase of $`B`$ HS .

In the general situation, however, both eigenvalues of $`\widehat{t}`$ are finite. Therefore, the dot is coupled to two electronic channels, which is sufficient to fully screen the it’s spin NB . As the result, the ground state of the system is a singlet at all $`\epsilon `$ ST ; Izumida2 ; real . In other words, when the dot is coupled to the leads, the singlet-triplet transition turns to a crossover. In order to study this crossover, we focus on a special subset Izumida2 ; Izumida1  of the matrices $`\widehat{t}`$ parametrized as

$$\widehat{t}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_{+1}& v_{+1}\\ v_1& v_1\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Obviously, for $`v_{\pm 1}0`$ both eigenvalues of $`\widehat{t}`$ are finite, so the choice Eq. (6) captures the essential physics of the system.

Since the ground state of the system is not degenerate, electrons scatter elastically at $`T=0`$. The amplitudes of scattering $`𝕊_{s;\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ of an electron with spin $`s`$ from lead $`\alpha ^{}`$ to lead $`\alpha `$ form the scattering matrix $`\widehat{𝕊}_s`$. The $`2\times 2`$ unitary matrix $`\widehat{𝕊}_s`$ can be diagonalized by a rotation in the $`RL`$ space to the new basis of channels $`n=\pm 1`$,

$$U\widehat{𝕊}_sU^{}=\mathrm{diag}\left\{e^{2i\delta _{ns}}\right\},U=e^{i\vartheta _0\tau ^y}e^{i\phi _0\tau ^z}.$$
(7)
Here $`\tau ^i`$ are the Pauli matrices acting in the $`RL`$ space ($`\tau _+=\tau _x+i\tau _y`$ transforms $`L`$ to $`R`$). In general, the angles $`\vartheta _0`$ and $`\phi _0`$ in Eq. (7) depend on the parameters of the microscopic Hamiltonian, and, in particular, on the values of $`\epsilon `$ and $`B`$. Here comes the key advantage of Eq. (6): with this choice of the tunneling amplitudes, the angles are parameter-independent constants: $`\vartheta _0=\pi /4`$, $`\phi _0=0`$. Indeed, when written in terms of the operators

$$\psi _{nks}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(nc_{Rks}+c_{Lks}\right),n=\pm 1,$$

\[corresponding to $`\vartheta _0=\pi /4`$ and $`\phi _0=0`$ in Eq. (7)\], the Hamiltonian (1)-(6) assumes the form

$$H=\underset{nks}{}\xi _k^{}\psi _{nks}^{}\psi _{nks}^{}+H_{\mathrm{dot}}+\underset{nks}{}v_n^{}(\psi _{nks}^{}d_{ns}^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)$$
(8)
with $`H_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ given by Eqs. (4), (5). For each $`n`$ and $`s`$ this Hamiltonian commutes with the operator

$$\widehat{}_{ns}=\underset{k}{}\psi _{nks}^{}\psi _{nks}^{}+d_{ns}^{}d_{ns}^{}$$

of the total number of electrons with spin $`s`$ on the “orbital” $`n`$. Since $`\widehat{}_{ns}`$ commute with each other, the (non-degenerate) ground state of $`H`$ is also an eigenstate of $`\widehat{}_{ns}`$. This implies that single-particle correlation functions are diagonal in $`n`$ and $`s`$, e.g., $`\psi _{nks}^{}(t)\psi _{n^{}k^{}s^{}}^{}(0)\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{ss^{}}`$. Therefore the scattering matrix, which can be expressed via retarded single-particle correlation functions, is diagonal in $`n`$ and $`s`$ as well.

The dimensionless conductance $`g`$ at $`T=0`$ is related to the off-diagonal elements of the scattering matrix by the Landauer formula $`g=\frac{1}{2}_s\left|𝕊_{s;RL}^2\right|`$. With the help of Eq. (7) the conductance can be expressed via the scattering phase shifts $`\delta _{ns}`$ at the Fermi energy:

$$g=\frac{1}{2}\underset{s}{}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_s,\mathrm{\Delta }_s=\delta _{+1,s}\delta _{1,s}.$$
(9)
(here we took into account that $`\vartheta _0=0`$). The scattering phase shifts $`\delta _{ns}`$ in Eqs. (7) and (9) are obviously defined mod $`\pi `$ (that is, $`\delta _{ns}`$ and $`\delta _{ns}+\pi `$ are equivalent). This ambuguity can be removed by setting the values of the phase shifts corresponding to $`𝒩=\mathrm{}`$ (when the dot is empty) to $`0`$. With this convention, the phase shifts at a finite $`𝒩`$ are expressed via the Friedel sum rule in terms of the ground state occupation numbers $`N_{ns}=d_{ns}^{}d_{ns}^{}`$,

$$\delta _{ns}=\pi N_{ns}.$$
(10)
Equation (10) is exact in the limit of infinite bandwidth. Alternatively, the phase shifts can be extracted directly from the finite-size spectra obtained by the numerical renormalization group HZ .

In the Coulomb blockade valley the number of electrons on the dot is fixed: $`N=_{ns}N_{ns}=2`$. Accordingly, the phase shifts satisfy

$$\underset{ns}{}\delta _{ns}=2\pi .$$
(11)
Additional relation for the phase shifts follows from the invariance of the Hamiltonian (1)-(4) with respect to the transformation $`(s,B)(s,B)`$:

$$\delta _{ns}(B)=\delta _{n,s}(B).$$
(12)
Consider first the limit of zero field, $`B=0`$. From Eqs. (11) and (12) it follows that

$$\delta _{ns}(0)=\delta _{n,s}(0)=\delta _n,\underset{n}{}\delta _n=\pi .$$
(13)
At the triplet side of the crossover $`\epsilon E_S`$ both levels in the dot are singly occupied, so that Eq. (10) yields $`\delta _n=\pi /2`$. On the contrary, at $`\epsilon E_S`$ the level $`n=1`$ is doubly occupied, while the level $`n=+1`$ is empty, which corresponds to $`\delta _1=\pi `$, $`\delta _{+1}=0`$. When $`\epsilon `$ is tuned through the crossover, the difference of the phase shifts, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s=\delta _{+1}\delta _1`$ \[see Eq. (9)\], monotonically decreases from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$. It follows then from Eq. (9) that the dependence of the dimensionless zero-field conductance $`g(\epsilon ,0)`$ on $`\epsilon `$ is nonmonotonic. The conductance reaches its maximum $`g=1`$ at some $`\epsilon =\epsilon _0`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\epsilon _0)=\pi /2`$, and falls off monotonically with the distance $`|\epsilon \epsilon _0|`$ to this point, see Fig. 1. The energy $`\epsilon _02E_S`$ may be identified with the center of the crossover region. The conductance $`g1`$ within this region. Later on we will relate the width of the crossover region $`T_0`$ to the parameters of the Hamiltonian (4),(8).

The effect of the Zeeman energy $`B`$ on the conductance accross the dot depends on how far its parameters are from the crossover point. In order to study the influence of a small $`B`$, one can expand the phase shifts in a series Nozieres . Taking into account Eqs. (11), (12), and (13), we obtain

$$\delta _{ns}(\epsilon ,B)=\delta _n+s\left(B/T_n\right)+n\left(B/T^{}\right)^2+O(B^3),$$
(14)
where $`n=\pm 1`$, $`s=\pm 1`$, and $`\delta _n`$, $`T_n`$, and $`T^{}`$ depend on $`\epsilon `$. The sign of the linear in $`B`$ term in Eq. (14) is fixed by the following argument. The spin polarization $`N_{n,+1}N_{n,1}`$ of electrons on each level ($`n=\pm 1`$) grows proportionally to $`B`$. It follows then from Eqs. (10) and (14) that $`T_n>0`$ for $`n=\pm 1`$. In the next order in $`B`$, magnetic field favors a triplet over the singlet state of the dot. Therefore, the difference $`N_{+1,s}N_{1,s}`$ increases with $`|B|`$, which fixes the sign of the second order in $`B`$ contribution in Eq. (14).

Substitution of Eq. (14) into Eq. (9) yields the low-$`B`$ asymptotics of the conductance,

$$g(\epsilon ,B)=g+(12g)\left(B/B_0\right)^2+4\sqrt{g(1g)}\left(B/T^{}\right)^2,$$
(15)
with $`g=g(\epsilon ,0)`$ and

$$\frac{1}{B_0(\epsilon )}=\left|\underset{n=\pm 1}{}\frac{n}{T_n(\epsilon )}\right|.$$
(16)
Around the crossover point $`g1`$, the last term in Eq. (15) vanishes, and

$$g(\epsilon ,B)1\left(B/B_0\right)^2,|\epsilon \epsilon _0|T_0.$$
(17)
Away from the crossover ($`g1`$), Eq. (15) yields

$$g(\epsilon ,B)g(\epsilon ,0)+\left(B/B_0\right)^2,|\epsilon \epsilon _0|T_0.$$
(18)
It is clear from Eqs. (17) and (18) that the conductance varies with the magnetic field in the opposite directions in the vicinity and far away from the crossover point. It should be emphasized that this is a generic property rather than a consequence of the specific choice of the model, Eq. (6). However, the precise borders of the crossover region $`\epsilon =\epsilon _\pm `$, see Fig. 1, as well as zero-field conductances $`g(\epsilon _\pm ,0)`$ at these points are model dependent. Note also that Eq. (15) is applicable only at $`BB_0(\epsilon )`$. The conductance at higher fields is a nonmonotonic function of $`B`$, see Refs. real ; Izumida1 ; HZ ; Zeeman .

The Hamiltonian Eq. (8) is identical to that employed previously ST  to study transport through a vertical dot. Accordingly, the thermodynamic properties of a lateral dot coincide with those of a vertical dot. However, the existing experiments test transport properties rather than thermodynamics. The electron current operators are different for the two models, hence the dependences $`g(\epsilon ,B)`$ are different as well. For instance, the conductance through a vertical dot at $`T=0`$ is large ($`4e^2/h`$) at the triplet side of the crossover and decreases with $`B`$, in contrast with Eq. (18).

At $`|\epsilon \epsilon _0|T_0`$ the parameters $`g(\epsilon ,0)`$ and $`B_0(\epsilon )`$ entering Eq. (18) can be estimated with the help of the perturbative renormalization group ST . In this regime the $`\epsilon `$-dependence of all observable quantities is governed by the parameter

$$x(\epsilon )=(\epsilon \epsilon _0)/T_0,1|x(\epsilon )|\delta E/T_0.$$
(19)
The estimated width of the crossover region satisfies ST

$$\mathrm{ln}(\delta E/T_0)\frac{E_CC(\gamma )}{\nu (v_{+1}^2+v_1^2)},\gamma =|v_{+1}/v_1|,$$
(20)
where $`\nu `$ is density of states in the leads. The function $`C(\gamma )`$ has a minimum $`C0.36`$ at $`\gamma =1`$ and goes over to $`1`$ as $`\gamma 0,\mathrm{}`$. The scale $`T_0`$ also plays the part of the Kondo temperature as it determines the $`T`$-dependence of the conductance in the crossover region: the peak in $`g(\epsilon )`$ disappears at $`TT_0`$. Typically, $`T_0`$ is larger than the Kondo temperatures in the nearby Coulomb blockade valleys with odd number of electrons on the dot EN ; ST .

The zero-$`B`$ conductance entering Eq. (15) away from the crossover point (at $`|x|1`$) is

$$g(\epsilon ,0)(\mathrm{ln}|x|)^2.$$
(21)
Finally, the characteristic magnetic field $`B_0(\epsilon )`$ defined in Eq. (16) has different asymptotes at the triplet and singlet sides of the crossover:

$`B_0/T_0\{\begin{array}{cc}|x|^\lambda (\mathrm{ln}|x|)^{2\lambda /(\lambda +1)},\hfill & \hfill x<0,\\ & \\ x(\mathrm{ln}x)^{2(\lambda +2)/(\lambda +1)},\hfill & \hfill x>0\end{array}`$ (25)
with $`\lambda =2+\sqrt{5}4.2`$ and $`|x|1`$.

The dependence of the differential conductance $`dI/dV`$ on the source-drain bias $`V`$ at $`eVT,B`$ is qualitatively similar to the dependence of the linear conductance on $`B`$ at $`BT`$. The similarity stems from the fact that $`dI/dV`$ is determined by the electron transmission coefficient at energies $`\omega eV`$, where $`\omega `$ is measured from the Fermi level GP\_review . The dependences of the transmission coefficient on $`\omega `$ and $`B`$ are controlled by a single energy scale; the $`\omega =0`$ limit of the transmission coefficient governs GP\_review ; real  the linear conductance $`g(\epsilon ,B)`$. Therefore, Eq. (17) implies also that $`dI/dV`$ decreases with $`V`$ in the crossover region shown in Fig. 1. On the contrary, away from the crossover the conductance is small, $`dI/dV(2e^2/h)g(\epsilon ,0)`$, in the domain $`V\mathrm{\Delta }VB_0/e`$ and is increasing with $`V`$, cf. Eq. (18). The “window” $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is narrow at the triplet side of the crossover but broadens approximately linearly with the distance to the crossover at the singlet side of it, see Eq. (25). This is in agreement with numerical simulations HZ .

The zero-bias suppression of $`dI/dV`$ was observed in recent experiments vanderWiel ; Kogan . A measurement in the limit of very weak tunneling, necessary for the proper characterization of the spin state of the dot, was not possible for the studied devices. However, the observed vanderWiel  asymmetric behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ across the point where the conductance has a maximum is precisely the expected behavior in the vicinity of the singlet-triplet crossover. The asymmetric behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ across the crossover may explain the observed Kogan  splitting of the Kondo peak in a certain range of gate voltages.

We benefited from discussions and correspondence with S. De Franceschi, M.A. Kastner, A. Kogan, L.P. Kouwenhoven, H. Schoeller, W.G. van der Wiel, and G. Zarand. Two of us (M.P. and L.I.G.) are grateful to the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at USCB and to the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for their hospitality. This work was supported by NSF grants DMR97-31756, DMR02-37296, and EIA02-10736. W.H. acknowledges financial support from the German Science Foundation (DFG), and L.I.G thanks the Institute for Strongly Correlated and Complex Systems at BNL for hospitality and support.


text:
# Specific heat amplitude ratio for anisotropic Lifshitz critical behaviors

## I Introduction

Among all properties of systems near a second order phase transition, amplitude ratios of certain thermodynamic potentials above and below the critical temperature play a fundamental role together with the critical exponents: they are examples of universal quantities. All universal amounts are characterized by a limited number of parameters defining the universality class and do not depend on the microscopic details of the system under consideration. One particular type of universality class is associated to the Lifshitz critical behavior  where the inclusion of competing interactions along one or more spatial directions is the main difference with respect to the ordinary critical behavior.

Recent investigations of the associated critical exponents for the $`m`$-axial Lifshitz universality class have been put forward using numerical Monte Carlo simulations  and field-theoretic approaches . Within the perturbative $`ϵ_L`$-expansion, there are two proposals in order to unravel the higher loop structure of this sort of critical behavior. One of them makes use of a semi-analytic $`ϵ_L`$-expansion for the critical exponents, where some loop integrals are evaluated through numerical integration . Another alternative is the purely analytical treatment of all loop integrals involved, such that new renormalization group as well as $`ϵ_L`$-expansion ideas have been developed in order to determine those critical indices . We shall focus our attention in the latter thoughout this article for convenience.

The Lifshitz multicritical point arises in a variety of real physical systems, but we shall be concerned here only with its manifestation in magnetic systems where it was originally discovered . The uniaxial case $`m=1`$ can be explained in terms of an Ising model with ferromagnetic interactions among nearest neighbors spins as well as additional antiferromagnetic couplings among the second neighbors along a single axis, known as ANNNI model . The competition originates several modulated phases in addition to the usual paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases. It is very simple to analyse the situation near the uniaxial Lifshitz point, which arises at the confluence of a modulated and a ferromagnetic phase with the paramagnetic phase. Allowing these competing interactions along $`m`$ spatial directions, one obtains the $`m`$-axial Lifshitz critical behavior. The anisotropic Lifshitz universality classes associated to this sort of critical behavior depend upon the number of components of the order parameter $`N`$, the space dimension $`d`$ and the number of competing axes $`m`$ of the system, therefore, extending the Ising-like universality classes characterized solely by ($`N,d`$). An interesting feature of the critical exponents of such systems is the property of universality class reduction: in the limit $`m0`$ the critical indices reduce trivially to those corresponding to the usual Ising-like behavior .

The theoretical determination of the specific heat amplitude ratio is especially worthwhile for two reasons. First, we would like to know whether the universality class reduction also holds for this amplitude ratio. As this property is also obeyed by the susceptibility amplitude ratio  one can conjecture that this property might hold for all critical amplitude ratios. Secondly, it would be highly desirable to compare the theoretical value of this amplitude ratio with experiments carried out in some real magnetic material exhibiting the Lifshitz critical behavior. This would yield a test for the convenience (or not) of the theoretical formalism employed in the solution of this problem. From the phenomenological viewpoint, theoretical and experimental studies have proved that manganese phosphide ($`MnP`$) presents a pure uniaxial Lifshitz point ($`m=1`$, $`d=3`$, $`N=1`$) . Moreover, the experimental determination of the specific heat amplitude ratio for $`MnP`$ was realized thirteen years ago by means of susceptibility measurements . A theoretical attempt to describe this amplitude ratio was performed using the mean field approximation  by neglecting the contribution of the fluctuations, but the agreement with the experiment was not achieved. A proper treatment should include the effect of fluctuations since they play a nontrivial role in the determination of this particular amplitude ratio.

In this paper the specific heat amplitude ratio near an anisotropic $`m`$-axial Lifshitz point is calculated at one-loop level using a $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory combined with new renormalization group and $`ϵ_L`$-expansion methods. We shall treat only the especial Ising-like case $`N=1`$, since for $`N>1`$ and below the Lifshitz critical temperature the appearance of a massless Goldstone mode leads to infrared problems which require a separate analysis . In the present field-theoretic setting the long-standing difficulty in this calculation is that it requires the knowledge of the coupling constant at the fixed point and the specific heat critical exponent at two-loop level in order to find out this amplitude ratio beyond the mean field approximation. These objects have recently been figured out at two-loop level  permitting, therefore, the present analysis. It represents the first theoretical report with the effect of the fluctuations properly included in the specific heat amplitude ratio for the anisotropic Lifshitz critical behavior. We point out that the universality class reduction also holds for this amplitude ratio. This is another step forward towards extending this property to all other critical amplitude ratios. Furthermore, we estimate it for the uniaxial case $`m=1`$ in three-dimensional systems. The result is in very good agreement with the experimental determination of the specific heat amplitude ratio in the magnetic compound $`MnP`$.

## II Specific heat amplitude ratio

Since the method of calculation has been described in a previous work  and is somewhat standard for ordinary critical systems , we will only review briefly the notations and the basic steps. The bare Lagrangian for the $`m`$-axial anisotropic Lifshitz critical behavior reads:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}|_m^2\varphi _0|^2+\frac{1}{2}|_{(dm)}\varphi _0|^2+\delta _0\frac{1}{2}|_m\varphi _0|^2+\frac{1}{2}t_0\varphi _0^2+\frac{1}{4!}\lambda _0\varphi _0^4.$$
(1)
The Lifshitz critical region is characterized by $`\delta _0=0`$ with the temperature close but not equal to $`T_L`$. We are going to restrict our analysis using the condition $`\delta _0=0`$ henceafter.

The anisotropic behavior possesses two independent correlation lengths parallel and perpendicular to the competition axes. They allow two independent renormalization group flows in momentum space along directions parallel or perpendicular to the competition axes . Rigorously speaking, we should assign a label to each renormalized vertex part associated to the flow along spatial directions parallel or perpendicular to the competing axes, but we have no need to label the renormalized quantities in this work, since the fixed point is independent of the flow direction used to renormalize the theory . Consequently, the amplitude ratios do not depend on what external momenta scale is varied in order to define the corresponding renormalization group transformation.

The one-loop renormalized Helmholtz free energy density at the fixed point obtained by using a nonvanishing quadratic external momenta scale for the $`m`$-axial Lifshitz critical behavior is given by :

$`F(t,M)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tM^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}g^{}M^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(t^2+g^{}tM^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g^{}M^2)^2)I_{SP}`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle }d^{dm}qd^mk[(ln(1+{\displaystyle \frac{t+\frac{1}{2}g^{}M^2}{q^2+(k^2)^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{g^{}M^2}{2(q^2+k^4)}}],`$
where in the above equation $`t,M`$ ($`t_0=Z_{\varphi ^2}^1t,\varphi =Z_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}}M`$) are the renormalized (bare) reduced temperature and order parameter, respectively, $`Z_{\varphi ^2},Z_\varphi `$ are normalization functions, $`g^{}`$ is the renormalized coupling constant at the fixed point, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is a $`(dm)`$-dimensional wave vector perpendicular to the competing axes, whereas $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a $`m`$-dimensional wave vector whose components are parallel to the competition axes. The integral $`I_{SP}`$ is defined by:

$$I_{SP}=\frac{d^{dm}qd^mk}{[(((k+K^{})^2)^2+(q+P)^2]((k^2)^2+q^2)}.$$
(4)
We choose to renormalize the theory using normalization conditions where the external momenta scale are zero ($`K^{}=0`$) along the competing axes whereas their nonvanishing components are perpendicular to the competition axes. A convenient symmetry point for this integral is chosen at $`P^2=\kappa _1^2=1`$. As the dimensionful coupling constant is related to that dimensionless by $`g^{}=(P^2)^{\frac{ϵ_L}{2}}u^{}`$, where $`ϵ_L=4+\frac{m}{2}d`$, this symmetry point transforms the dimensionful into the dimensionless coupling constant. The typical geometric angular factor for each loop integral characterizing the $`m`$-axial Lifshitz behavior is $`\frac{1}{4}S_{dm}S_m\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\frac{m}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{m}{4})`$. These factors should be extracted whenever a loop integral is performed and absorbed in a redefinition of the coupling constant . At the symmetry point the integral calculated at nonzero external momenta is given by $`I_{SP}=\frac{1}{ϵ_L}(1+[i_2]_mϵ_L)`$, where $`[i_2]_m=1+\frac{1}{2}(\psi (1)\psi (2\frac{m}{4}))`$ and $`\psi (z)=\frac{dln\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}{dz}`$ .

Since the vertex part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0,2)}`$ is additively renormalized, the singular part of the specific heat scales with the temperature in the form :

$$C=A|t|^{\alpha _L}=\frac{\nu _{L2}}{\alpha _L}B(u^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0,2)},$$
(5)
where $`B(u^{})`$ is the inhomogeneous term of the renormalization group equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0,2)}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0,2)}=\frac{^2F(t,M)}{t^2},$$
(6)
is the vertex part which is related to the specific heat only at zero external momentum insertion.

Above the Lifshitz temperature, $`M=0`$ and using Eqs. (2) and (5) we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0,2)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{dm}qd^mk}{(q^2+(k^2)^2+t)^2}+\frac{1}{2}I_{SP}.$$
(7)
When $`T<T_L`$, we replace the value of $`M`$ at the coexistence curve, where $`u^{}M^2=6t`$, to find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0,2)}=\frac{3}{u^{}}2(\frac{d^{dm}qd^mk}{(q^2+(k^2)^2+2|t|)^2}I_{SP}).$$
(8)
The calculation of the one-loop remaining integrals are straightforward. The integration over the quadratic loop momenta is trivial, and when the remaining quartic loop integral integral is performed we find:

$$\frac{d^{dm}qd^mk}{(q^2+(k^2)^2+\stackrel{~}{t})^2}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}^{\frac{ϵ_L}{2}}}{ϵ_L}(1\frac{ϵ_L}{2}(\psi (2\frac{m}{4})\psi (1)),$$
(9)
where we have used the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ in order to unify the language above and below the Lifshitz critical temperature $`T_L`$.

The exponents $`\nu _{L2}`$, $`\alpha _L`$ and the fixed point (using normalization conditions) were calculated in Ref.  and expressed as:

$`\alpha _L={\displaystyle \frac{(4N)}{2(N+8)}}ϵ_L{\displaystyle \frac{(N+2)(N^2+30N+56)}{4(N+8)^3}}ϵ_L^2,`$ (10)
$`\nu _{L2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(N+2)}{4(N+8)}}ϵ_L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{(N+2)(N^2+23N+60)}{(N+8)^3}}ϵ_L^2,`$ (11)
$`u^{}={\displaystyle \frac{6}{8+N}}ϵ_L\left\{1+ϵ_L\left[[i_2]_m+{\displaystyle \frac{(9N+42)}{(8+N)^2}}\right]\right\}.`$ (12)
Now we take the particular value $`N=1`$. On the other hand, the additive constant is given by:

$$B(u^{})=\kappa _1(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,2)}}{\kappa _1})_{|_{P^2=\kappa _1^2=1}}=\frac{1}{2}\kappa _1^{ϵ_L}(1+[i_2]_mϵ_L).$$
(13)
After taking $`\kappa _1^2=1`$ we obtain up to first order in $`ϵ_L`$ the following result:

$$\frac{\nu _{L2}}{\alpha _L}B(u^{})=\frac{3}{2ϵ_L}+\frac{3[i_2]_m}{2}+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{87}{58}=\frac{1}{u_1^{}}+2.$$
(14)
Using Eqs.(6), (7) and (8) in conjunction with the value of $`I_{SP}`$ we can easily determine $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0,2)}`$ above and below $`T_L`$. After that, use Eqs.(4) and (12) to derive the specific heat amplitude ratio at one-loop level:

$$\frac{A_+}{A_{}}=\frac{2^{\alpha _L}}{4}(1+ϵ_L),$$
(15)
where in this formula the specific heat critical index is given at $`O(ϵ_L`$, i.e., $`\alpha _L=\frac{ϵ_L}{6}`$.

## III Discussion

Firstly, the result displays a universal form, since it only depends on $`m`$ and $`d`$. Note that this easily reduces to the usual critical behavior in the limit $`m0`$, therefore confirming the reduction of the Lifshitz universality class to the Ising-like universality class. As the susceptibility amplitude ratio presents the same property at one-loop level, this might be a general feature of all critical amplitude ratios, including not only thermodynamic amplitudes but also correlation amplitude ratios as well as mixed (correlation/thermodynamic) amplitude ratios. Future work will be devoted to those issues.

On the other hand, this amplitude ratio was determined experimentally for $`MnP`$ and found to be $`\frac{A_+}{A_{}}=0.65\pm 0.05`$ . Replacing $`m=1,d=3`$ into the above expression we find $`\frac{A_+}{A_{}}=0.74`$. If we neglect the error bar in the experiment, the difference among the two results is about $`9\%`$, therefore, in very good agreement with the experimental value obtained for $`MnP`$. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that this experimental value of the specific heat amplitude ratio in $`MnP`$ was obtained using nonlinear least-square fits to adjust it along with the value of the critical exponent $`\alpha _L`$. The constraint that the value of the critical exponents above and below the Lifshitz critical temperature must be equal ($`\alpha _L^+=\alpha _L^{}`$ consistent with scaling theory) yielded the experimental result $`\alpha _L=0.46\pm 0.03`$, which in turn led to the value $`\frac{A_+}{A_{}}=0.65\pm 0.05`$ for $`MnP`$ . Moreover, the different values for the exponents produced by unconstrained fits near $`T_L`$ were recognized by those authors as a departure from theoretical predictions, but could also be atributed to the closeness of the first-order ferromagnetic-helical(fan) transition, which makes the experimental analysis more difficult. Indeed, the experimental specific heat exponent is in disagreement with different theoretical estimates for the uniaxial three-dimensional case whose specific heat exponent is approximately $`0.20`$ .

Since the experimental specific heat amplitude ratio depends upon the specific heat exponent, the best fit which produced the $`\alpha _L`$ exponent nearly two times larger than that from theoretical calculations should affect the value of that amplitude ratio due to error propagation. Of course, a different fit resulting in another experimental value of $`\alpha _L`$ does modify the above amplitude ratio due to crossover effects which take place when the temperature is varied . For instance, when the value of $`\alpha _L`$ is close to $`0.270`$ in a certain fit, the value of the corresponding experimental amplitude ratio (fixed by this value of the specific heat exponent) is given by $`\frac{A_+}{A_{}}=0.435`$, but the system is at $`T=132.4K`$  which is away of the Lifshitz temperature $`T_L=(121\pm 1)K`$ for $`MnP`$ and is affected by the crossover to the Ising universality class. The funny surprise is that very close to the Lifshitz critical temperature this error is rather small when theoretical and experimental estimates for this amplitude ratio are compared as discussed in the present work, in spite of the large deviation between the measured specific heat critical exponent for $`MnP`$ and calculated values using theoretical tools as discussed above.

A comparison of theoretical and experimental results of this critical amplitude ratio with the one associated to the Ising-like universality class is illuminating. For $`N=1,d=3`$ the $`ϵ`$-expansion ($`ϵ=4d`$) result of this amplitude ratio at one-loop level yielded $`\frac{A_+}{A_{}}=0.56`$ . By neglecting the error bars, specific heat measures in different materials belonging to the same universality class resulted in critical amplitude ratios varying from $`0.53`$ to $`0.58`$ . On the other hand, series expansion studies of this ratio produced values in the range $`0.620.70`$ . The $`ϵ`$-expansion estimate furnishes better values than those coming from series expansion even though the $`ϵ`$ parameter is not a small number in this case ($`ϵ=1`$).

For three-dimensional uniaxial systems $`ϵ_L=1.5`$ is even bigger than in the situation for the Ising-like case analysed above. This might be the main consequence for a greater difference between the experimental and theoretical results of this amplitude ratio when compared to the ordinary critical behavior. In order to see whether this is a good argument, we suggest the measurement of this specific heat amplitude ratio in other uniaxial magnetic materials like $`CoNb_2O_6`$ . For Ising-like magnets the deviation of these specific heat amplitude ratios for different materials is rather small among themselves as well as when they are compared with results derived from the $`ϵ`$-expansion. Hence, from our $`ϵ_L`$-expansion results we would expect a larger deviation of this amplitude ratio for different materials presenting a uniaxial critical behavior. Nevertheless, our results are rather encouraging in comparison with experiments in $`MnP`$, indicating the reliability of the $`ϵ_L`$-expansion approach to this sort of behavior. Since further numerical works have not been pursued for critical amplitude ratios pertaining to the anisotropic Lifshitz universality classes, we hope our endeavor can stimulate other numerical estimates like series expansions or Monte Carlo simulations, in order to improve the comprehension of as many critical amplitude ratios as possible for competing systems.

In summary, we have derived the specific heat critical amplitude ratio above and below the Lifshitz critical temperature for a general anisotropic behavior $`1<d<m1`$. The anisotropic universality class reduces easily to the Ising-like one in the limit $`m0`$. Needless to say, the result is independent of the choice of the symmetry point employed: had we started with a symmetry point characterized by zero external momenta perpendicular to the competing axes and nonvanishing external momenta components parallel to the competition axes, we would have arrived at the same result. The uniaxial value of this ratio is in very good agreement to that measured for $`MnP`$. Hence, the analytical approach presented here in order to treat this amplitude ratio is convenient to describe phenomenological aspects of real physical systems presenting competing interactions. A thorough study of all critical amplitude ratios as well as a nonperturbative proof of their universal character based solely on renormalization group arguments for both anisotropic and isotropic cases will be an interesting topic for future investigation.

The author thanks C. C. Becerra for useful discussions and financial support from FAPESP, grant number 00/06572-6.