high precision nucleon - nucleon ( nn ) interactions such as av18  @xcite , cdbonn  @xcite , nijm i , ii and 93  @xcite accurately describe the nn data set up to about 350 mev . when these interactions are used to predict binding energies of three - nucleon ( 3n ) systems they underestimate the experimental bindings of @xmath5 and @xmath6 by about 0.5 - 1 mev  @xcite .
this missing binding energy can be cured by introducing a three - nucleon force ( 3nf ) into the nuclear hamiltonian  @xcite .
the study of elastic nucleon - deuteron ( nd ) scattering and nucleon - induced deuteron breakup also revealed a number of cases where the nonrelativistic description based on pairwise interactions is insufficient to explain the data .
generally , the studied discrepancies between a theory based on nn interactions only and experiment become larger with increasing energy of the 3n system . adding a 3nf that includes long - range @xmath7 exchange to the pairwise interactions leads in some cases to a better description of the data .
the parameters of such a 3nf must be separately adjusted to the experimental binding of @xmath5 and @xmath6  @xcite for each nn interaction .
the elastic nd angular distribution in the region of its minimum and at backward angles is the best studied example  @xcite . the clear discrepancy in these angular regions at energies below @xmath8  mev nucleon laboratory energy between a theory based on nn interactions only and the cross - section data can be removed by adding modern 3nfs based on chiral effective field theory @xcite to the nuclear hamiltonian . at energies
higher than @xmath8  mev current 3nfs @xcite only partially improve the description of cross section data and the remaining discrepancies , which increase with energy , indicate the possibility of relativistic effects  @xcite . the need for a relativistic description of 3n scattering
was also raised when precise measurements of the total cross section for neutron - deuteron ( nd ) scattering  @xcite were analyzed within the framework of nonrelativistic faddeev calculations  @xcite .
nn interactions alone were insufficient to describe the data above @xmath8  mev .    in few - body models off - shell effects , relativistic effects , and three - body force contributions can not be cleanly separated .
this is because different two - body interactions that give the same two - body @xmath0 matrix are related by a unitary scattering equivalence  @xcite . to maintain
this equivalence at the three - body level requires additional three - body interactions @xcite in one of the hamiltonians .
since relativistic two - body models are fit to the same data as the corresponding nonrelativistic models , there is a similar on - shell two - body scattering equivalence .
while the relativistic and nonrelativistic three - body predictions will be different one can in principle make up the difference ( in a chosen frame ) with a suitable three - body interaction .
so while it is possible to simulate `` relativistic effects '' with a three - body interaction , a poincar invariant treatment of the dynamics provides the most direct way to model the consequences of imposing poincar invariance and s - matrix cluster properties .    in this paper
we investigate one particular representation of the poincar invariant three - body problem .
we compare the predictions of relativistic and nonrelativistic three - body calculations where the input two - body interactions give the same two - body s matrix , have the same internal two - body wave functions , and have a kinematic three - dimensional euclidean symmetry .
the relativistic and nonrelativistic models differ in how these interactions appear in the three body - problem .
in addition , the internal and single particle variables are related by galilean boosts in the nonrelativistic case and lorentz boosts in the relativistic case . in the nonrelativistic case
the two - body interactions for each pair are added to the center of mass kinetic energy operator . in the relativistic case ,
the non - linear relation between the two and three - body mass operators must be respected in order to obtain a scattering matrix that clusters into a product of the identity and the input two - body @xmath0-matrix @xcite .
this non - linear dependence of the three - body invariant mass operator on the two - body interaction has dynamical consequences for the three - body system which complicates the structure of the faddeev kernel .    in  @xcite
we used a poincar invariant formulation of the 3n scattering problem .
a technique for constructing the relativistic nucleon - nucleon interaction from a standard high - precision interaction was given in  @xcite .
we used the same technique to construct the transition operators that appear in the kernel of the relativistic faddeev equation .
application to a 3n bound state supported the relativistic effects previously found in  @xcite .
realistic nn interactions are fit by properly transforming experimental data to the center of momentum frame and fitting @xmath0-matrix elements computed using the nonrelativistic schrdinger equation to this data .
while the same data could be precisely fit using @xmath0-matrix elements computed from a relativistic schrdinger equation , this has not been done @xcite with the same precision used to construct realistic interactions .    in  @xcite , instead , an analytical scale transformation of momenta was used to relate nn interactions in the nonrelativistic and relativistic schrdinger equations in such a way , that the two - body scattering matrix elements are identified as @xmath9 as functions of the center of momentum energy  @xcite . in this work
we use an alternative procedure @xcite that generates a relativistic nucleon - nucleon interaction with the property that the relativistic and nonrelativistic two - body @xmath0 matrices satisfy @xmath10 , where @xmath11 is the experimental two - body @xmath0 matrix , and @xmath12 is the cm momentum of one of the particles .    when high - precision potentials are determined @xcite by properly lorentz transforming scattering data from the laboratory frame to the center of momentum frame the lorentz invariant scalar product @xmath13 is used to relate the laboratory beam energy @xmath14 to the c.m .
momentum @xmath12 .
the potential is determined by comparing the transformed experimental scattering observables to the scattering observables computed using the nonrelativistic lippmann - schwinger equation , identifying the @xmath12 appearing in the lippmann - schwinger equation with the @xmath12 computed from the invariant @xmath15 . with this procedure
the resulting interactions are constructed so the s - matrix elements in the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases are identified as functions of @xmath12 rather than cm energy .
though the difference in the two approaches leads to a small mismatch in the relativistic and nonrelativistic momentum , the interactions generated by the analytic scale transformation provide a useful first step to investigate the effects of the non - linear relation between the three - body mass operator and two - body interactions .    in our initial studies  @xcite the interaction generated by the analytic scale transformation was used to study the changes in elastic nd scattering and breakup observables when the nonrelativistic form of the kinetic energy is replaced by the relativistic one and a proper treatment of the dynamics is included .
we found that the elastic scattering cross section is only slightly influenced by relativity . only at backward angles and higher energies
the elastic cross sections are increased by relativity .
due to the selectivity of the breakup reaction , however , regions of phase - space were found at higher energies of the incoming nucleon where relativity leads to a characteristic pattern by which relativity changes the nonrelativistic breakup cross section .
namely , in this region of phase - space fixing the angle of the first detected nucleon and changing the angle of the second nucleon provides variations of the nonrelativistic cross section by relativity , increasing or decreasing it by a factor up to @xmath16 . for spin observables the implemented relativistic features lead only to small effects .
recently an interesting estimate of `` relativistic corrections '' has been performed and its effect on low - energy nd analyzing power @xmath2 has been estimated using the plane - wave impulse approximation  @xcite . the estimate is based on a perturbative realization of the poincar lie algebra to leading order in @xmath17 @xcite .
the calculations are done in the plane - wave impulse approximation .
a large increase by @xmath18 of the @xmath2 maximum at laboratory energy @xmath19  mev has been found .
the authors comment that their estimates are both exploratory and incomplete .
in addition to the absence of final state interaction , there are a number of other important differences with an exact formulation of this problem .
such a large effect , which would significantly reduce the discrepancy between theory and data in the region of the @xmath2 maximum , calls for a relativistic study in an exactly poincar invariant treatment of the three nucleon dynamics .
our previous study  @xcite , performed without inclusion of wigner rotations , is too limited for spin observables . therefore , in order to make definite conclusions for @xmath2 we perform a complete dynamical calculation including the effects of wigner rotations .
we focus on that issue and do not include 3nf s .
the paper is organized as follows . in section
ii we discuss the construction of our poincar invariant dynamical model .
this includes a discussion of how high - precision interactions are used to construct the three - body mass operator ( rest hamiltonian ) . in section iii
we discuss spin observables in poincar invariant quantum theory . in sec .
iv we discuss the formulation of the faddeev equation to construct scattering observables for this three - nucleon mass operator .
this includes an exact treatment of the faddeev kernel which avoids the approximations used in  @xcite .
we solve the relativistic 3n faddeev equation with and without wigner spin rotations .
we show and discuss results for the neutron analyzing power @xmath2 .
v contains a summary and conclusions .
in a quantum theory the principle of special relativity requires that the probabilities computed for equivalent experiments done in different inertial coordinate systems are identical . since
inertial coordinate systems are related by poincar transformations , it follows @xcite that equivalent states in different inertial coordinate systems are related by a unitary representation , @xmath20 , of the poincar group .
this emphasis on the invariance of experimental measurements in different inertial frames is different than the covariance requirements that are historically motivated by the way symmetries are realized in classical wave equations .
since any representation of the poincar group can be decomposed into a direct integral of irreducible representations , one way to construct a poincar invariant dynamics is to build it out of irreducible representations .
the transformation properties of irreducible representations are well known and completely determined by group theoretical considerations .
the dynamics is contained in the spectrum of the physical mass and spin operators which determines the values and multiplicities of the casimir invariants that appear in this decomposition .
our construction begins with one - particle representations , which are irreducible representations .
the particle s mass and spin fix the eigenvalues of the two casimir invariants of the poincar group . for computations
it is necessary to choose a basis for the irreducible representation space .
this is done by choosing a maximal set of commuting hermitian functions of the infinitesimal poincar generators .
in addition to the mass and spin , it is possible to find four additional mutually commuting non - invariant functions of the generators .
there is a second set of four operators that are conjugate to the non - invariant commuting observables .
these operators change the eigenvalues and determine the spectrum of the commuting observables .
all ten generators can be expressed as functions of these eight non - invariant operators and the two casimir operators .
the irreducible representation space , @xmath21 , is the space of square integrable functions of the eigenvalues of the four commuting operators @xcite .
our choice of basis for irreducible representation spaces is the simultaneous eigenstates of the linear momentum @xmath22 and the 3-component of the canonical spin , @xmath23 , which is the observable corresponding to the spin measured in the particle s rest frame if the particle is transformed to its rest frame with a rotationless lorentz transformation . in this basis
the irreducible unitary representation of the poincar group is @xcite :    @xmath24 \label{b.1}\ ] ]    where @xmath25 , @xmath26 , and @xmath27 is the rotationless lorentz transformation that takes a particle of mass @xmath28 at rest to momentum @xmath22 .
the quantity @xmath29 is the standard rotationless - boost wigner rotation .
the representation ( [ b.1 ] ) is unitary for states with a @xmath30 normalization in the momentum .
the important observation is that _ all _ mass @xmath31 spin @xmath32 irreducible representations of the poincar group in the @xmath33 basis have this form .
the two or three - nucleon hilbert space is the tensor product of two or three single - nucleon irreducible representation spaces ; @xmath34 or @xmath35 . on each of these spaces
@xmath36 define kinematic representations of the poincar group .
these representations are reducible and do not contain any dynamics .
we build dynamical irreducible representations by adding suitable interactions to the mass casimir operator of non - interacting irreducible representations .
the first step needed to introduce interactions is then to decompose these non - interacting tensor product representations into a direct integral of irreducible representations .
this is accomplished with poincar group clebsch - gordan coefficients in our chosen @xmath37 basis .
the poincar group clebsch - gordan coefficients are the expansion coefficients of linear combination of tensor product states that transform irreducibly .
the desired non - interacting irreducible states are computed by ( 1 ) constructing rest eigenstates of the two - body system , ( 2 ) decomposing them into irreducible representations under @xmath38 rotations , ( 3 ) boosting the result to an arbitrary frame .
the resulting clebsch - gordan coefficients in this basis are @xcite@xcite@xcite @xmath39 @xmath40 @xmath41   d^{j_2}_{\mu_2 ' \mu_2}[r_w(b(\mathbf{p}/m_{120 } ) , k_2 ] = \label{b.3}\ ] ] @xmath42 @xmath43   d^{j_2}_{\mu_2 ' \mu_2}[r_w(b(\mathbf{p}/m_{120 } ) , k_2 ] .
\label{b.4}\ ] ] in these expressions @xmath44 @xmath45 and the two - body invariant mass @xmath46 is replaced by the continuous variable @xmath47 .
the quantum numbers @xmath48 and @xmath49 are kinematically invariant quantities that distinguish multiple copies of representations with the same mass ( @xmath50 ) and spin . for a two nucleon - system
they have the same spectrum as the orbital and spin angular momentum operators in a partial wave representation of the nonrelativistic basis .
an irreducible representation is also obtained by changing the order of the spin couplings in ( [ b.3]-[b.4 ] ) where the orbital angular momentum is first coupled to one of the spins , @xmath51 , and then the result is coupled to the second spin . @xmath52 .
this representation is constructed by making the replacements in @xmath53 @xmath54 in equation ( [ b.3 ] ) or ( [ b.4 ] ) . in this representation
the degeneracy parameters @xmath55 are replaced by @xmath56 . when we construct three - body irreducible representations by successive pairwise coupling we use the coupling ( [ b.3 ] ) in the first clebsch - gordan coefficient and the coupling ( [ b.8 ] ) in the second clebsch - gordan coefficient .
this allows us to identify the quantum numbers of the relativistic irreducible basis with the quantum numbers that we used in previous nonrelativistic calculations ( @xcite ) .
three - particle irreducible representations for systems of non - interacting particles can be constructed by successive pairwise coupling of irreducible representations : @xmath57 @xmath58 for three nucleon scattering or bound state problems it is sufficient and convenient to work in the three - body center of momentum frame .
this simplifies the coefficients ; the wigner rotations in the second clebsch - gordan coefficient in ( [ b.9 ] ) become the identity and the normalization factor @xmath59 .
both of these factors are non - trivial in the first coefficient .
the form of these coefficients for the case that particle 1 is a spectator ( for details see  @xcite ) and using a short hand notation , is @xmath60   d^{1\over{2 } } _ { \mu_3 ' \mu_3 } [ r_w ( b(-\mathbf{q}_1/m_{023 } ) ) ~ ) , { k}_3(~ \mathbf{q}_2,\mathbf{q}_3 ) ~ ) ] .
\label{b.10}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath61 @xmath62    the important property of the states @xmath63 and
@xmath64 is that they transform irreducibly .
the mass and spin are given by @xmath65 @xmath66 respectively .    in order to use these representations to construct dynamical representations an interaction
is added to the two- or three - body invariant mass operator of the form @xmath67 for @xmath68 or @xmath69 for @xmath70 .
diagonalizing @xmath71 or @xmath72 in the noninteracting irreducible basis gives simultaneous eigenstates of @xmath73 for @xmath68 and of @xmath74 for @xmath70 . in
both the two and three - body case these eigenstates , @xmath75 and @xmath76 , where @xmath77 and @xmath78 are the eigenvalues of @xmath79 and @xmath80 , are complete on the two and three - body hilbert spaces respectively .
the dynamical representation of the poincar group is defined by requiring that these eigenstates transform like ( [ b.1 ] ) with the mass being replaced by the mass eigenvalues @xmath81 or @xmath77 .
this representation is unitary and defines the dynamics of the system . with our choice of irreducible basis , @xmath82
, the resulting irreducible representations of the poincar group have a mass independent representation of the three - dimensional euclidean subgroup , which dirac @xcite called an `` instant - form dynamics '' .    for the three - nucleon case there
remains the problem of how to construct realistic @xmath83-interactions . for two - body interactions the relation @xmath84 implies that the square of the two - body mass operator has a simple relation to the nonrelativistic rest hamiltonian with a `` realistic '' nn interaction @xcite provided one identifies the spectrally equivalent relative momenta , @xmath12 . in the relativistic case @xmath85 @xmath86 while in the nonrelativistic case @xmath87 : @xmath88 where @xmath89 is a rotationless lorentz boost and
@xmath90 is the corresponding galilean boost .
the kato - birman invariance principle @xcite implies that the mller wave operators satisfy @xmath91 where @xmath92 is any piecewise differentiable function of bounded variation with positive derivative @xcite . the functions @xmath93 and @xmath94 satisfy the conditions of kato - birman theorem .
using equation ( [ b.23 ] ) along with the kinematic euclidean invariance of the hamiltonians @xmath95 and @xmath96 gives the following relation between the two - body scattering wave operators @xmath97 on the other hand the identification ( [ b.20 ] ) along with the reparametrization @xmath98 gives @xmath99 writing both wave operators as direct integrals over @xmath100 leads to the identifications @xmath101 and @xmath102 the identification of the relativistic and nonrelativistic wave operators as functions of @xmath12 ensures that the relativistic two - body model is fit to the same two - body @xmath0-matrix ( experimental data ) as the nonrelativistic model provided the interactions are related by ( [ b.20 ] ) .
the identification of the wave operators also implies the identity of the scattering wave functions as a function of @xmath103 .
the identity of the bound state wave functions is also due to the relation ( [ b.20 ] ) .    in our calculations
we use the interaction @xmath104 defined by @xmath105 which we construct @xcite from the @xmath83 interaction in ( [ b.20 ] ) by iterating @xmath106 in the irreducible plane - wave basis . because @xmath79 and @xmath107 have the same eigenvectors , the @xmath103 dependence of the wave functions constructed from @xmath79 are also identical to the corresponding nonrelativistic wave functions .    the equation ( [ b.28 ] ) in the irreducible plane - wave basis has the form @xmath108
@xmath109    the iteration converges quickly for realistic interactions @xcite .
while a mathematical proof of convergence of the iteration of ( [ b.29 ] ) is lacking , the results of the iterations are easily tested because the resulting @xmath110 must have the same eigenfunctions as the nonrelativistic two - body hamiltonian .
we applied this approach using the cd  bonn potential as the nonrelativistic interaction @xmath111 . in our previous studies
@xcite we used the momentum transformation of ref .
@xcite and in addition restricted to leading order terms in @xmath112 and @xmath113 expansion only @xmath114 we checked that in most cases this simple approximation leads to practically the same results as the exact approach applied in the present study .
once the two - body mass operator is constructed , the three - body mass operator for the interacting @xmath115 pair is the well - defined non - linear function of the two - body mass : @xmath116 where @xmath117 is embedded in the three body hilbert space so it commutes with @xmath118 .
if this is interpreted as the rest energy operator , the interacting pair and spectator energies are additive in the rest frame .
this implies that the @xmath0 matrix clusters properly in the rest frame - while the invariance of @xmath0 in all frames ensures that this property extends to all inertial coordinate systems .
pairwise interactions in the three - body system are defined by @xmath119 @xmath120 for any pair of particles these interactions commute with kinematic momentum and spin , and are independent on the momentum and magnetic quantum numbers .
this ensures that the sum of the interactions has the general form ( [ b.19 ] ) .
a generalization of the method used in ( [ b.28]-[b.29 ] ) can be used to construct @xmath121 by iterating @xmath122 specifically @xmath123 @xmath124 @xmath125 \label{b.34}\ ] ] this iteration also converges and is used to construct interactions @xmath126 for each pair of particles .
the three - body mass ( rest energy ) operator is @xmath127 where @xmath128 is the three - body kinematic invariant mass : @xmath129    our relativistic faddeev equation is based on this mass operator ( [ b.35 ] ) with two - body interactions constructed from the cd  bonn interaction using equations ( [ b.28 ] ) , ( [ b.29 ] ) , ( [ b.33 ] ) and ( [ b.34 ] ) .
finally , just like in the nonrelativistic case , there is a natural order of coupling of the irreducible representations for computing each pairwise interaction .
the change of basis relating different orders of coupling is needed for the implementation of the faddeev equation as an integral equation .
the required basis change only changes the invariant degeneracy quantum numbers associated with each order of coupling .
@xmath130   \label{b.37}\ ] ]    the invariants @xmath131 $ ] are racah coefficients for the poincar group .
they are constructed using four poincar clebsch - gordan coefficients .
we compute this quantity using the balian - brezin method @xcite , where the variables associated with one order of coupling are expressed in terms of the variables associated with another order of coupling .
the invariant coefficient , @xmath131 $ ] , can be computed by evaluating the expression at zero momentum , averaging over the magnetic quantum numbers , and evaluating the resulting expression at any kinematically allowed set of momenta @xcite .
these racah coefficients contain wigner rotations and jacobians which do not appear in the nonrelativistic permutation operators .
explicit expressions are given in appendix [ a2 ] .
in a poincar invariant quantum theory or relativistic quantum field theory the spin of a particle can be defined as the angular momentum that is measured in the particle s rest frame . for any non - zero momentum , @xmath22 ,
different lorentz transformations can be used to transform a particle at rest to frame where the particle has momentum @xmath22 .
because the commutator of two rotationless boost generators @xmath132 = -i \epsilon_{jkl } j_j   \label{s.1}\ ] ] is a rotation generator , the spin of the particle with momentum @xmath22 depends on the choice of lorentz transformation that transforms the particle s momentum from zero to @xmath22 . in order to have an unambiguous definition of the spin
it is necessary to choose a standard set of @xmath22 dependent lorentz boosts , @xmath133 , that transform a particle of mass @xmath28 at rest to momentum @xmath22 .
then the spin of the particle can be unambiguously defined as the value of the spin measured in the particles rest frame if it is transformed to the rest frame using the standard lorentz transformation . with this definition ,
if two spins are equal in one frame they are equal in all frames .
the choice of standard boost is not unique because if @xmath134 is any @xmath22 dependent rotation and @xmath135 then both @xmath136 and @xmath137 both transform @xmath22 to zero .
each choice of boost leads to a different spin operator , corresponding to a different prescription for measuring the spin in an arbitrary frame .
the rotation @xmath138 that relates different boosts is called a generalized melosh rotation @xcite@xcite .
the spin operator @xmath139 associated with a boost @xmath140 is defined as the following function of the poincar generators : @xmath141 where @xmath142 is the pauli - lubanski vector , @xmath143 is the relativistic angular momentum tensor , and @xmath144 is the boost matrix with the parameters @xmath145 and @xmath28 replaced by the mass and momentum operators .    while this quantity has the appearance of a four vector , it is not because of the operator dependence of the arguments of the boost . instead
, under lorentz transformations the spin transforms like @xmath146 where @xmath147 is the wigner rotation associated with the boost @xmath140 .
it is a consequence of the poincar commutation relations that the components of any of these spin observables satisfy @xmath38 commutation relations @xmath148_{- } = i \epsilon_{lmn } j_{xn }   \label{s.7}\ ] ] for any `` @xmath149 '' .
the operator @xmath150 is independent of the choice of boost because the generalized melosh rotations leave the scalar product of two vectors unchanged .
the spin defined with the textbook rotationless or canonical boost is called the canonical spin .
it is natural to ask how these different types of spins are measured in the laboratory .
spins of isolated elementary or composite particles are measured in the laboratory through their response to classical electromagnetic fields . in the one - photon exchange approximation
the photon couples to matrix elements of a covariant current operator . imposing poincar covariance , current conservation , and discrete symmetries allows one to express all current matrix elements in terms of an independent set of matrix elements , which have a 1 - 1 correspondence with invariant form factors .
all conventional form factors can be expressed in terms of breit frame matrix elements with canonical spin and a quantization axis parallel to the breit frame momentum transfer .    in the @xmath151 representation canonical boosts
are represented by positive hermitian matrices .
they have the general form @xmath152 where @xmath153 is the rapidity of the lorentz transformation and @xmath154 are the pauli matrices . in this paper
all of our spins are canonical spins .
the @xmath155 representation of canonical boosts are the standard rotationless boosts .    given a definition of the form factors in terms of independent current matrix elements in a given basis , it is also possible to express them in terms of current matrix elements in any other standard frame using any other basis  @xcite .
for example the expression in terms of breit frame canonical spin matrix elements , can be replaced by a different independent set of laboratory frame helicity spin matrix elements . in quantum field theory
the choice of boost is built into conventions used to define the dirac spinors .
the relation of the invariant form factors to current matrix elements with different choices of spin determines the relationship between different spin observables and experiment .
the spin degrees of freedom of the asymptotic incoming or outgoing particles are most conveniently expressed in terms of traces of density matrices , which is a reflection of the fact that realistic initial and/or final states are generally not pure states .
scattering spin observables in cross sections are formally defined by @xcite @xmath156 where @xmath157 is the invariant scattering amplitude for the reaction under consideration .
the connection between the invariant scattering amplitude defined in the particle data book @xcite and the transition amplitudes constructed by solving our formulation of the relativistic faddeev equations is given in @xcite .
the quantities @xmath0 have the form @xmath158 where the index runs over all @xmath159 or @xmath160 initial or final sets of magnetic quantum numbers , @xmath161 are a basis for @xmath162 or @xmath163 matrices that are orthonormal with respect to the trace norm and @xmath164 are constant coefficients @xcite .    if the initial and final asymptotic states are represented in a canonical spin basis , then the magnetic quantum numbers that appear in the invariant amplitudes @xmath157 transform with wigner rotations under lorentz transformations .
the result is that the spin observable @xmath165 will not be invariant unless the matrices @xmath161 or coefficients @xmath164 are defined to transform in a manner that leaves the observable invariant .
any spin observable can be made lorentz invariant , by defining the invariant observable as its value in a given frame if it is transformed to the frame with a specific lorentz boost .
this can be used to get an invariant definition of the vector or tensor polarizations .    in this paper invariant
spin observables are defined to be the values of the observable in the laboratory frame ( rest frame of the target ) . to evaluate the corresponding spin observable
it is only necessary to evaluate the expression @xmath166 for the values of the invariant amplitudes with laboratory kinematics .
this observable is equal its value evaluated in other frames using the formula @xmath167 where the invariant amplitudes are evaluated in the other frame and @xmath168 and @xmath169 are products of wigner @xmath168-functions of the wigner rotations associated with the boost from the lab frame to the other frame .
our specific interest in this paper is the observable @xmath2 with polarized incoming nucleon .
the convention used to define @xmath2 is the madison convention , where the laboratory frame scattering plane is in the @xmath170 plane .
the observable @xmath2 , is defined as @xmath171 because the wigner rotation for canonical boost along the direction of a particle s momentum is the identity , @xmath172 is unchanged so @xmath2 can also be evaluated in the c.m .
frame without making any compensating wigner rotations .
the nucleon - deuteron scattering with neutron and protons interacting through a nn interaction @xmath173 alone is described in terms of a breakup operator @xmath157 satisfying the faddeev - type integral equation  @xcite    @xmath174    the two - nucleon ( 2n ) @xmath175-matrix @xmath175 results from solving the lippmann - schwinger equation with the interaction @xmath173 .
the permutation operator @xmath176 is given in terms of the transposition @xmath177 which interchanges nucleons i and j. the incoming state @xmath178 describes the free nucleon - deuteron motion with relative momentum @xmath179 and the deuteron state vector @xmath180 .
finally @xmath181 is resolvent of the three - body center of mass kinetic energy .
the elastic nd scattering transition operator u is given in terms of @xmath157 by  @xcite @xmath182    this is our standard nonrelativistic formulation , which is equivalent to the nonrelativistic 3n schrdinger equation plus boundary conditions . the formal structure of these equations in the relativistic case remains the same but the ingredients change . as explained in  @xcite the relativistic 3n rest hamiltonian ( mass operator )
has the same form as the nonrelativistic one , only the momentum dependence of the kinetic energy changes and the relation of the pair interactions in the three - body problem to the pair interactions in the two - body problem changes .
consequently all the formal steps leading to eqs.([eq1a ] ) and ( [ eq1c ] ) remain the same .    the free relativistic invariant mass of three identical nucleons in their c.m .
system has the form ( [ b.36 ] ) while the free two - body mass operator has the form ( [ b.7 ] ) .    as introduced in  @xcite the pair forces in the relativistic 3n @xmath183 mass operator
are given by ( [ b.32 ] ) where @xmath184 reduces to the interaction @xmath104 for @xmath185 .
the transition matrix that appears in the kernel of the faddeev equation ( [ eq1a ] ) is obtained by solving the `` lippmann - schwinger equation '' , which must be solved as a function of @xmath186 @xmath187 the input two - body interactions are computed by solving equation ( [ b.33 ] ) and ( [ b.34 ] ) .
the new relativistic ingredients in eqs.([eq1a ] ) and ( [ eq1c ] ) will therefore be the @xmath175-operator ( [ eq2a ] ) ( expressed in partial waves ) and the resolvent of the 3n invariant mass @xmath188 where @xmath128 is given by eq .
( [ b.36 ] ) and @xmath189 is the total 3n c.m . energy expressed in terms of the initial neutron momentum @xmath179 relative to the deuteron @xmath190 and @xmath191 is the deuteron rest mass .
currently eq.([eq1a ] ) in its nonrelativistic form is numerically solved for any nn interaction using a momentum space partial - wave decomposition .
details are presented in ref .
this turns eq.([eq1a ] ) into a coupled set of two - dimensional integral equations .
as shown in  @xcite , in the relativistic case we can keep the same formal structure , though the permutation operators are replaced by the corresponding racah coefficients ( [ b.37 ] ) for the poincar group .
these coefficients include both jacobians and wigner rotations that do not appear in the nonrelativistic permutation operators  @xcite .
these coefficients are computed in the appendix [ a2 ] , using methods that we have applied to compute the nonrelativistic permutation operators .    in the nonrelativistic case the partial wave
projected momentum space basis is @xmath192 where p and q are the magnitudes of standard jacobi momenta ( see @xcite ) , obtained by transforming single particle momenta to the rest frame of a two or three - body system using galilean boosts , and @xmath193 two - body quantum numbers with obvious meaning , @xmath194 refer to the third nucleon ( described by the momentum q ) , @xmath195 is the total 3n angular momentum and the rest are isospin quantum numbers . in the relativistic case
this basis is replaced by the irreducible plane wave states defined in ( [ b.10 ] ) .
the basis states ( [ b.10 ] ) are used for the evaluation of the partial wave representation of the permutation operator p with wigner rotations of spin states for nucleons @xmath196 and @xmath197 included . in the relativistic case
we adopt the following short - hand notation for the irreducible three - body states , which also includes isospin quantum numbers coupled in the same order : @xmath198 equipped with that , projecting eq.([eq1a ] ) onto the basis states @xmath199 one encounters like in the nonrelativistic notation  @xcite @xmath200 this is evaluated by inserting the complete basis of states @xmath201 and using ( [ b.10 ] ) .
it can be expressed in a form which resembles closely the one appearing in the nonrelativistic regime  @xcite @xmath202 where all ingredients are given in the appendix [ a2 ] .
due to short - range nature of the nn interaction it can be considered negligible beyond a certain value @xmath203 of the total angular momentum in the two - nucleon subsystem . generally with increasing energy @xmath203 will also increase .
for @xmath204 we put the t - matrix to be zero , which yields a finite number of coupled channels for each total angular momentum j and total parity @xmath205 of the 3n system . to achieve converged results at our energies we used all partial wave states with total angular momenta of the 2n subsystem up to @xmath206 and took into account all total angular momenta of the 3n system up to @xmath207 .
this leads to a system of up to 143 coupled integral equations in two continuous variables for a given @xmath195 and parity .
the subject of the present study is to investigate the influence of relativity on the nd elastic scattering nucleon analyzing power @xmath2 at low energies .
we define the invariant observable @xmath2 to be the value measured in the laboratory frame ( target at rest ) .    to this aim we solved faddeev equations at a number of the incoming neutron lab energies @xmath208  mev , @xmath209  mev , and @xmath210  mev . to check the energy dependence of the effect we added two additional energies @xmath211  mev and @xmath212  mev . in order to see the importance of specific relativistic features we solved the equation in the relativistic case with and without wigner rotations .
this allowed us to see which effects , dynamical corrections , which are induced by the momentum dependence of the two - body force together with kinematical relativistic effects coming from the use of the poincar jacobi variables , or wigner rotations , dominate for @xmath2 .
figs.[fig1 ] and [ fig2 ] illustrate the results . when only dynamical effects are taken into account ( wigner rotations neglected )
then at low energies of the incoming neutron the relativistic and nonrelativistic predictions are practically the same with the exception of the angular region close to the maximum of @xmath2 where the relativistic prediction is @xmath213 below the nonrelativistic one ( see fig.[fig1 ] ) .
this small effect disappears at higher energies ( see fig.[fig2 ] ) .
including wigner rotations lowers significantly the values of @xmath2 in a large region of angles around the maximum .
the changes in the maximum are up to @xmath214 .
again , when the energy of the incoming neutron increases nonrelativistic and relativistic predictions are practically identical .
the large changes of @xmath2 occur in a region of energies where this observable is extremely sensitive to changes in @xmath215 , @xmath216 , and @xmath217 nn force components @xcite . at energies where this sensitivity dies out also the relativistic effects for @xmath2
become negligible .
this allows to conclude that the large effects seen for @xmath2 at low energies are due to amplification of changes of the @xmath218 contributions due to relativity by a large sensitivity of @xmath2 to @xmath219-waves .    in a recent study @xcite the changes of @xmath2 due to relativity by @xmath220 at @xmath221  mev
have been reported .
very probably the opposite sign of the effect found in that study can be attributed to the impulse approximation used when calculating @xmath2 .
for @xmath222 elastic scattering at various lab energies @xmath223 of the incoming neutron .
the dotted line is the result of the nonrelativistic faddeev calculation with the cd  bonn potential .
the relativistic predictions without and with wigner spin rotations are shown by the dashed and solid lines , respectively .
the nd data at @xmath224  mev and @xmath209  mev are from ref .
@xcite and at @xmath210  mev are from ref .
@xcite . ]     for @xmath222 elastic scattering at @xmath225  mev and @xmath212  mev . for description of lines see fig.[fig1 ] .
all theoretical predictions are practically overlapping .
the pd data at @xmath226  mev are from ref .
@xcite and at @xmath212  mev from @xcite . ]
we numerically solved the 3n faddeev equation for nd scattering including relativistic kinematics , dynamical relativistic effects and wigner rotations at the neutron lab energies @xmath227 , @xmath209 , @xmath210 , @xmath226 , and @xmath212  mev . as dynamical input we took the nonrelativistic nn potential cd  bonn and generated in the 2n c.m
. system an exactly on - shell equivalent relativistic interaction @xmath104 , by solving numerically nonlinear quadratic equation relating matrix elements of the nonrelativistic and relativistic potentials .
we checked that the approximate procedure using an analytical scale transformation of momenta applied in our previous studies provides practically the same results as the present exact approach .
in addition a similar nonlinear equation ( eq.([b.33 ] ) ) was used to generate the momentum dependent two - body interaction embedded in the @xmath197-particle hilbert space .
we found that at low energies the effects of wigner rotations are most important for the analyzing power .
they lower the maximum of @xmath2 by up to @xmath214 .
the dynamical relativistic effects are of minor importance for @xmath2 and provide small changes of @xmath2 in a region close to its maximum .
they lower @xmath2 by only @xmath3 .
the relativistic effects disappear at higher energies .
wigner rotations are negligible for the cross section and all other spin observables in elastic nd scattering with exception of four low energy spin correlations @xmath228 , @xmath229 , @xmath230 , @xmath231 and four low energy spin transfer coefficients : from deuteron to deuteron @xmath232 and @xmath233 , and from deuteron to neutron @xmath234 and @xmath235 .
very probably this can be traced back as in the case of @xmath2 to their sensitivity to @xmath236-waves .
these results shed new light on the low - energy analyzing power puzzle .
it is known that the existing discrepancies between @xmath2 data and theoretical predictions based on nn potentials only can not be removed when current three - nucleon force , mostly of @xmath237-exchange character @xcite are included in the nuclear hamiltonian .
this indicated that additional 3n forces should be added to the @xmath237-exchange type forces .
such forces provided by @xmath238pt in nnlo and nnnlo orders are expected to provide the solution for the @xmath2 puzzle  @xcite .
it seems that in view of the present result they must increase the maximum of @xmath2 stronger than expected up to now .
however , @xmath2 is a very sensitive observable and our approach , using the irreducible @xmath239 basis , is only one of many possible basis choices that lead to poincar invariant dynamical theories that are two - body scattering equivalent , which may give different three - body predictions .
this work was partially supported by the helmholtz association through funds provided to the virtual institute `` spin and strong qcd''(vh - vi-231 ) .
it was also performed in part under the auspices of the u.  s. department of energy , office of nuclear physics , contract no . de - fg02 - 86er40286 with the university of iowa .
the numerical calculations were performed on the ibm regatta p690 + of the nic in jlich , germany .
in our calculations @xmath240 matrices are used to represent wigner rotations and lorentz transformations . in this way spin algebra
is reduced to working with @xmath241 complex matrices , and there is no need for representations in terms of euler angles .
the relevant relations are give below .
the coordinates of a four - vector @xmath242 can be labeled by the @xmath241 hermitian matrix @xmath219 : @xmath243 where @xmath244 are the identity and the three pauli matrices .
the components of @xmath242 can be extracted from the matrix @xmath219 using : @xmath245    because @xmath246 and @xmath247 for real @xmath242 , it follows that any linear transformation that preserves the hermiticity and determinant of @xmath219 is a real lorentz transformation .
it is easy to show that if @xmath248 is a complex @xmath249 matrix with @xmath250 then the transformation @xmath251 has both of these properties : @xmath252    the most general @xmath241 matrix with determinant 1 can be written as @xmath253 where @xmath254 .
if @xmath255 then @xmath256 is unitary and corresponds to an @xmath38 rotation through an angle @xmath257 about the @xmath258 axis . if @xmath259 then @xmath248 is a positive hermitian matrix that corresponds to a rotationless ( canonical ) lorentz boost with rapidity @xmath260 in the direction @xmath261
the rotation @xmath262 is given by @xmath263 the axis of rotation can be extracted using @xmath264 and the angle of rotation can be extracted from @xmath265    the rotationless boost that transforms a particle of mass @xmath28 at rest to total momentum @xmath22 can be labeled by the final four velocity @xmath266 : @xmath267 where @xmath268 is the rapidity of the lorentz boost which is related to @xmath269 by @xmath270 and @xmath271 @xmath272 satisfies @xmath273 where @xmath274 the rotationless boost above is called the canonical boost .
the inverse transformation is obtained by reversing the sign of @xmath269 or @xmath22 .
the wigner @xmath168 functions are homogeneous polynomials of degree @xmath275 in the coefficients of the @xmath240 matrices @xmath276 : @xmath277^{1/2 }   \over ( j+\mu-\alpha)!\alpha ! ( \alpha - \mu + \nu ) ! ( j -\nu -\alpha ) ! } a_{11}^{j+\mu-\alpha }     a_{12}^{\alpha }     a_{21}^{\alpha -\mu+\nu }     a_{22}^{j-\nu-\alpha }     \label{a2.16}\ ] ] these are representations of both @xmath240 and @xmath38 .
the @xmath278 representation is just the matrix @xmath248 .
using eq .  ( [ b.10 ] ) twice for the bra state @xmath279 and the ket state @xmath280 one gets for the matrix element of the permutation operator in our partial wave basis :    @xmath281 ~ \cr & ~ &     d^{{1\over{2}}~*}_{m_3 \mu_3 } [ r_w(b ( - \mathbf{q}/2\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ) ) , ( - \mathbf{k}(~ \mathbf{q}~ ' , -\mathbf{q } - \mathbf{q}~'~)~,\omega_m(\mathbf{k } )   ) ] ~   \cr & ~ & d^{{1\over{2}}}_{m_3 \mu_2 ' } [ r_w(b ( -\mathbf{q}~'~/2\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ) ) ,   ( \mathbf{k}(~ -\mathbf{q } -\mathbf{q}~ ' , \mathbf{q}~ ) ~ , \omega_m(\mathbf{k } ) ) ] ~   \cr & ~ & d^{{1\over{2}}}_{m_1 \mu_3 ' } [ r_w(b ( -\mathbf{q}~'~/2\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ) ) , ( -\mathbf{k}(~ -\mathbf{q } -\mathbf{q}~ ' , \mathbf{q}~ ) ~ , \omega_m(\mathbf{k } ) ) ] ~ \cr & ~ &   _ 1 < ( ~ ( t{1\over{2 } } ) t ~ \vert ~ ( t'{1\over{2 } } ) t ~ > _ 2 , \label{eq17}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      proceeding as in  @xcite one gets the following expression for the matrix element of the permutation operator p : @xmath287 with @xmath288 and @xmath289 { d^{1/2}_{m_3 \mu_2'}}[r_w(b(\mathbf{q}'/2\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ' ) ) , ( \mathbf{k}',\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ' ) ) ] ) \cr & ~ & \sum_{\mu_3 ' }   ( { 1\over{2 } } , \mu_2 ' , { 1\over{2 } } , \mu_3 '   \vert s ' ,   \mu_2 ' + \mu_3 ' )   \cr & ~ & \sum_{m_1 } ( \lambda 0 { 1\over{2 } } , m_1 ,   \vert i , m_1 ) { d^{1/2}_{m_1 \mu_3'}}[r_w(b(-\mathbf{q}'/2\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ' ) ) , ( -\mathbf{k}',\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ' ) ) ]   \cr & ~ & \sum_{\mu }   ( l , \mu-\mu_2-\mu_3 , s , \mu_2+\mu_3 \vert j , \mu ) ( -)^{\mu-\mu_2-\mu_3}y_{l -(\mu-\mu_2-\mu_3}(\hat{\mathbf{p } } ) ( j , \mu , i , m_1 \vert j ,
\mu+m_1 )   \cr & ~ & \sum_{\mu ' }   ( l ' , \mu'-\mu_2'-\mu_3 ' , s ' , \mu_2'+\mu_3 ' \vert j ' , \mu ' ) y_{l ' \mu'-\mu_2'-\mu_3'}(\hat{\mathbf{p } } ' ) ( j ' , \mu ' , i ' , \mu+m_1-\mu ' \vert j , \mu+m_1 )   \cr & ~ & \sum_{m_2 } ( \lambda ' , \mu+m_1-\mu'-m_2 , { 1\over{2 } } , m_2   \vert i ' , \mu+m_1-\mu ' ) \cr & & ~~~~ { d^{1/2}_{m_2 \mu_2}}^*[r_w(b(-\mathbf{q}/2\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ) ) , ( \mathbf{k},\omega_m(\mathbf{k } ) ) ] y_{\lambda ' \mu+m_1-\mu'-m_2}(\hat{\mathbf{q } } ' ) .
\label{eq23}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we use standard notation @xmath290 .
it is assumed that z - axis is along @xmath269 and the momentum @xmath291 lies in the x - z plane what leads to the following components of the @xmath269 , @xmath291 , @xmath103 , and @xmath292 vectors @xmath293 \cr \mathbf{q}~ ' & = & [ q'\sqrt{1-x^2 } , 0 , q'x ] \cr \mathbf{k } & = & [ q'\sqrt{1-x^2 } , 0 , q'x + { 1\over { 2}}q(1+y_1(q , q',x ) ) ] \cr \mathbf{k } ' & = & [ -{1\over{2}}q'(1+y_2(q , q',x))\sqrt{1-x^2 } , 0 ,   -q-{1\over { 2}}q'(1+y_2(q , q',x))x ]   \label{eq24}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    though the direct evaluation of euler angles as arguments of the wigner d - functions could be used like in @xcite , here we use the @xmath240 representations of lorentz transfomations discussed in appendix [ a1 ] .
this leads to @xmath294 & = &    b ( \mathbf{p}_2/m ) b ( - \mathbf{q}/m_0 ) b ( \mathbf{k}/m)\nonumber\\ &   = &   \sqrt{\frac{e_0 + m_0}{2 m_0 } } \sqrt{\frac{\omega(k ) + m}{\omega(p_2 ) + m}}\nonumber\\ &   - &   \frac{\mathbf{k } \cdot \mathbf{q } } { \sqrt{2 m_0 ( e_0 + m_0 ) ( \omega(k ) + m ) ( \omega ( p_2 ) + m)}}\nonumber\\ &   + &   i \mathbf{k } \times \mathbf{q } \cdot \bsig \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 m_0 ( e_0 + m_0 )   ( \omega(k ) + m ) ( \omega ( p_2 ) + m)}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath295


oscillatory exchange coupling between metallic magnetic layers across a non - magnetic spacer has been intensively studied over the last few years .
one of the main issues in this field has been the determination of the oscillation periods of the coupling as a function of the spacer thickness .
the physical mechanisms proposed for explaining the so - called oscillatory interlayer coupling include the quantum well theory ( qwt ) of edwards _ et al._@xcite and an extension of the ruderman - kittel - kasuya - yosida ( rkky ) theory adapted to the multilayer geometry due to bruno and chappert@xcite .    both theoretical approaches seem to agree that the origin of the oscillation periods is in the structure of the spacer fermi surface ( fs ) .
in fact , in the rkky theory the periods are associated with wave vectors directly obtained from the fs .
more specifically , they are given by vectors perpendicular to the layer planes which span two points of the fs with anti - parallel fermi velocities@xcite .
there has been a general belief that all oscillation periods are given by the rkky theory and therefore that such a simple picture is always valid .
indeed , it has been shown that in certain simple models @xcite the periods predicted by the qwt coincide with the rkky ones and are given by the extremal dimensions of the spacer fs in the direction perpendicular to the layers . in another case
@xcite , where the lattice lacks reflection symmetry about the layer planes , the correspondence between the quantum well and the rkky periods is rather subtle but still obtains . in the models mentioned above
, harmonics of the rkky periods are obtained but no new fundamental periods .
furthermore , dalbuquerque e castro _ et al_. @xcite showed analytically for a very general model that rkky theory holds in the limit of small exchange splitting in the ferromagnetic material .
however , using a more general approach@xcite based on the existence of quantum well states@xcite , fundamental periods not predicted by rkky theory have been recently obtained for the particular case of a fcc lattice along the ( 110 ) direction @xcite . in that communication , within the single - band tight - binding model with nearest neighbour interaction
, it is shown that in addition to the rkky predictions , a number of distinct periods is involved in the coupling .
those new periods arise from non - negligible higher order terms which rkky , as a second order perturbative approach , does not account for .
the resemblance of the fs considered with those of the noble metals suggests possible real effects in systems having these materials as spacers .
moreover , the occurrence of non - rkky behaviour within the simplest single - band model indicates that it should also happen in the more elaborate multi - band case .
in fact , non - magnetic transition metals with their multi - sheet fermi surfaces are suitable candidates for presenting non - rkky periods .
furthermore , in most cases investigated so far , each oscillation period comes from distinct @xmath0-points of the 2-dimensional brillouin zone ( bz ) .
even when multi - periodic oscillations occur , one value of @xmath1 yields only one period . the existence of more than one period for a single value of @xmath1 , which may arise in a number of cases , has not been thoroughly investigated and the combination of such periods may lead to new features of the oscillations . for the reasons above , a general understanding of the mechanisms determining all oscillation periods is needed .
the purpose of this work is to generalize the method previously used to calculate the oscillation periods of the interlayer coupling .
the relation between the periods and the spacer fs is clarified and in addition to the determination of the usual periods , the general conditions for occurrence of non - rkky behaviour are also established .
furthermore , here we present a rather detailed set of results in order to illustrate better the different stages of the calculations .
the sequence of the paper is as follows . in section [ general ]
we present a general method for obtaining the oscillation periods of the interlayer coupling , where in addition to the determination of the usual periods , the existence of non - rkky behaviour is proved to be possible . similarly to previous theoretical approaches@xcite , an expression for the coupling in the asymptotic limit of large spacer thickness is derived .
here however , the occurrence of multi - periodicity for a single value of @xmath1 becomes evident at the same time that the relation between the oscillation periods and the spacer fs is clarified . in section [ fcc110 ] , in order to illustrate the method , we look at the particular case of the fcc lattice along the ( 110 ) direction which unmistakably shows the relevance of terms beyond rkky approximation .
finally , in the last section we conclude and present the general conditions for occurrence of non - rkky oscillations .
based on the formalism introduced by dalbuquerque e castro _
et al._@xcite , where the coupling is expressed in terms of the one - electron green s functions of the multilayered system , we here present a general method for determining all the oscillation periods involved in the coupling .    for the sake of simplicity
, we consider a system consisting of two parallel magnetic planes embedded in an infinite non - magnetic material .
we label the two ferromagnetic planes @xmath2 and @xmath3 , so that the number of non - magnetic spacer planes is @xmath4 .
as far as the coupling as a function of the spacer thickness is concerned the number of magnetic planes does not affect the periods @xcite , influencing only phase and amplitude of the oscillations . since the periods are our main concern , the restriction to two single magnetic planes does not pose any limitations on the results here obtained .
the expression for the coupling @xmath5 , namely the difference in the thermodynamical potential @xmath6 between the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic configurations , is given by@xcite @xmath7 where the function @xmath8 is given by @xmath9 in the equations above @xmath10 is the propagator between planes @xmath2 and @xmath3 for electrons with spin @xmath11 in the ferromagnetic configuration of the system , @xmath12 is the fermi function , @xmath13 is a diagonal matrix in orbital indices representing the strength of the local exchange potential in the ferromagnetic layers , and the summation over @xmath1 is restricted to the two - dimensional brillouin zone ( bz ) .
it is worth stressing that all matrices above are in orbital indices .
we assume for simplicity that the non - magnetic part of the potential in the ferromagnetic planes is identical to the spacer on - site potential .
this is not an essential assumption and can be lifted without major effects on the results .
in fact , it has been shown that the presence of a spin - independent square well does not influence the periods of the interlayer coupling , affecting only the phase and amplitude of the oscillation @xcite .
as such , the exchange splitting of the magnetic material acts as two localized perturbations on the planes @xmath2 and @xmath3 and in this situation the propagators @xmath14 can be written as a function of the bulk spacer propagators @xmath15 and @xmath16 , _
i.e. _ , @xmath17 within the particular case of the single - band model the explicit dependence of @xmath18 upon the off - diagonal propagators @xmath15 and @xmath16 is , for each @xmath1 and @xmath19 , given by @xmath20 where @xmath21 is a general matrix element of the bulk spacer green s function and @xmath22 . an analogous expression can be obtained for @xmath23 . note that whereas eq.([ggeneral ] ) involves matrices in orbital indices , all terms in eq.([g ] ) are scalars .
returning to the general case and for reasons of future comparison , it is worth presenting the rkky - limit expression for the bilinear coupling @xmath24@xcite .
it is given by eq.([j ] ) with @xmath8 replaced by @xmath25 we recall that the expansion of @xmath26 in powers of @xmath27 , being @xmath28 the angle between the magnetization vectors in the magnetic planes , defines the bilinear and biquadratic couplings @xmath29 and @xmath30 , respectively @xcite .
moreover , it is found that higher order terms than @xmath31 are negligible so that @xmath32 @xcite .
it is clear from eqs.([fwq ] ) , ( [ ggeneral ] ) and ( [ frkky ] ) that in either case the spacer thickness dependence of the interlayer coupling is entirely determined by the off - diagonal propagators @xmath33 and @xmath16 . the investigation of the oscillation periods thus requires an analysis of @xmath16 as a function of @xmath3 .      for fixed values of @xmath1 , the green s functions @xmath34 are equivalent to 1-dimensional propagators with @xmath0-dependent hoppings and in - plane energies .
we recall that @xmath34 is a matrix over orbital indices and therefore a general matrix element @xmath35 represents the propagation of an electron with orbital @xmath36 from plane @xmath37 into an orbital @xmath38 at plane @xmath39 .
it is given by @xmath40 where @xmath41 is the wave vector perpendicular to the layers , @xmath42 is the interplane distance , @xmath43 describes the bulk spacer band structure , being @xmath44 the band index , and @xmath45 is the projection of the eigenstate @xmath44 into the orbital @xmath36 for a given @xmath46 .
the integral in eq.([integral ] ) can be evaluated for @xmath47 by simply extending @xmath46 to the complex plane and changing the contour integration from a straight line on the real axis to the boundaries of a semi - infinite rectangle in the upper - half plane whose base lies on the real axis between @xmath48 and @xmath49 . for the case
@xmath50 , the extension is to a rectangle in the lower - half plane . in either case
the integrand vanishes as @xmath51 and because @xmath52 and @xmath53 are equivalent wave vectors , the integrals along the vertical sides of the rectangle cancel each other , simplifying the problem to the calculation of the residues associated with the poles of the integrand inside the closed contour .
the poles are in turn given by the values of @xmath46 satisfying the condition @xmath54 , where @xmath55 .
the poles are clearly dependent on the band structure .
due to the in - plane symmetry of the system , the general tight - binding hamiltonian of the homogeneous system is written as @xmath56 where @xmath57 are operators describing the electron hopping between planes @xmath58 and @xmath59 .
the upper limit of the sum depends on the maximum number of planes @xmath60 connected through the electron hoppings as well as on the lattice structure .
as we shall see , in the fcc lattice along the ( 110 ) direction for instance , even with only hoppings between nearest atoms being included , electrons may hop between nearest and next nearest planes . for a fixed value of @xmath61 , the wave vectors @xmath46 satisfying the equation @xmath62 are the solutions of a polynomial equation in @xmath63 , _
i.e. _ , @xmath64 where @xmath65 is a function of the @xmath0-dependent hoppings and in - plane energies .
note that the solutions of the equation above are exponentials @xmath63 and not wave vectors @xmath46 themselves .
we label the poles @xmath66 , where @xmath67 numbers the poles of a given band index @xmath44 . since @xmath68 poles appear in pairs and may be real or complex .
we see from a simple taylor expansion of @xmath69 around the real poles that , for a given pair , which pole contributes to the integral depends on the sign of the derivative @xmath70 . for a given band @xmath44 which crosses the energy @xmath71 twice , yielding two pairs of real poles , the contributory poles @xmath72 and @xmath73 have different signs . in other words , when @xmath72 is in the range [ @xmath74
, @xmath73 is in the range [ @xmath75 or vice versa .
it is interesting to look at the physical significance of the real poles .
being obtained from the band structure @xmath43 , the poles @xmath66 are just the wave vectors with which electrons of energy @xmath19 having in - plane energies @xmath76 and hoppings @xmath77 propagate across the spacer .
thus , for @xmath78 , where @xmath79 is the fermi energy , the real poles are just the perpendicular coordinates of the fs for a fixed value of @xmath0 .
as discussed later , complex poles contribute significantly only in the case of thin spacers .    by adding the residues associated with the contributory poles we obtain an analytical expression for @xmath21 , given by @xmath80 where the matrix elements of the matrix @xmath81 are @xmath82 _ { q_\perp = q_j^s}\right\}^{-1}\,\ , .
\label{aa}\ ] ] the coefficients @xmath83 depend neither on @xmath37 nor on @xmath39 and the only dependence on the distance between the planes is inside the argument of the exponentials . in addition , the exponentials are independent of the orbital indices , which means that all matrix elements oscillate with the same periods . note that in calculating eq.([aa ] ) we have assumed that the coefficients @xmath84 are not ill - behaved , that is , they have neither singularities nor branch points inside the integration contour . in this way , we just need to evaluate the coefficients at the poles @xmath66 .
nevertheless , in a general case the coefficients @xmath84 are not well behaved . although they do not have singularities like in the denominator of eq.([integral ] ) , branch points and cuts do exist .
the contributions from the branch points must be taken into account otherwise a simple summation of the residues will not give the correct result of the integration .
this is a very important point that , if overlooked , may lead to erroneous results .
in fact , in a paper by bruno @xcite where the coupling is expressed in terms of transmission and reflection coefficients of electrons across quantum barriers , a similar integral to that in eq.([integral ] ) arises . in that communication no particular attention was given to the analytic properties of the coefficients @xmath85 and the result above was erroneously concluded to be exact for arbitrary values of @xmath37 and @xmath39 .
it is important to stress that eqs.([glm ] ) and ( [ aa ] ) are not correct in general .
the equations above become exact for all @xmath37 and @xmath39 only within the single - band model , where there are no coefficients introducing branch points .
this is clearly seen in fig.[g05 ] where the real and imaginary parts of the function @xmath86 of a linear chain with hoppings up to four nearest neighbours within the single - band model are displayed .
the parameters used were @xmath87 , @xmath88 , @xmath89 , @xmath90 and @xmath91 , where @xmath92 is the in - plane energy and @xmath93 are the hoppings to the @xmath37-th neighbour planes .
the analytical results following eq.([glm ] ) , represented by the lines , are in absolute agreement with the brute - force calculation of eq.([integral ] ) , represented by the symbols . in the general case there are also contributions to the @xmath46 integral arising from branch cuts associated with the coefficients @xmath84 . since in general these cuts do not intersect the real axis , the factor @xmath94 in the integrand of eq.([integral ] ) ensures that the contribution is negligible for large @xmath95 .
thus , failure to treat the branch cuts correctly does not introduce errors in the asymptotic limit of large @xmath95 .
it is clear that @xmath21 is an oscillatory function of the distance between the planes and it oscillates with different periods , each one associated with its respective wave vector @xmath66 .
in addition , the combination of exponentials allows a quasi - periodic behaviour of @xmath21 because , in general , the wave vectors @xmath66 are incommensurate .
this fact , as we shall see , may have a striking effect on the oscillatory coupling .
another point to be mentioned is the possibility of evaluating @xmath21 in eq.([glm ] ) for non - integer values of @xmath37 and @xmath39 , which allows the evaluation of the coupling for continuous values of spacer thickness .
we now mention the case of complex poles .
since they have non - zero imaginary parts , their contribution for large separation between the planes is again negligible .
thus only real wave vectors contribute to the oscillations for large @xmath96 .
bearing in mind that the principal contribution to the coupling comes from the energy region around the fermi level@xcite , it is clear that at least one real wave vector will be involved in the expression for @xmath97 .
thus the sum over the band index @xmath44 in eq.([glm ] ) must be only over the bands which cross the fermi level .      having investigated the function @xmath21 as a function of the distance between the planes , we recall that @xmath8 is expected to oscillate with the same periods .
the obvious way of representing the function @xmath8 is through a simple fourier expansion , which nevertheless can not be done due to the quasi - periodicity of @xmath34 . in other words , because the wave vectors @xmath66 are in general incommensurate , @xmath33 and @xmath16 may have an overall non - periodic behaviour . to overcome this problem we make use of the multiple fourier series , recently used to deal with the problem of magnetic thickness dependence of the interlayer coupling@xcite .
the procedure consists in replacing the spacer thickness @xmath3 multiplying the wave vectors @xmath66 in each exponential with fictitious spacer thicknesses @xmath98 , such that eq.([glm ] ) becomes @xmath99 the new function @xmath100 is now periodic in each variable @xmath98 separately , and so is its corresponding @xmath101 .
bearing in mind that @xmath100 does not correspond to the physically real case , which is reproduced by making @xmath102 for every @xmath67 and @xmath44 , we evaluate the fourier series for each variable @xmath98 separately , eventually making them all equal @xmath3 . @xmath8 then becomes @xmath103 where @xmath104 are integers , @xmath105 are the fourier coefficients given by @xmath106 and @xmath107 are the periods associated with the wave vectors @xmath66 .
the number of indices involved in the fourier coefficients is the same as the number of poles because each @xmath66 has been associated with a fictitious spacer thickness @xmath98 . in spite of the somewhat congested notation , in practice
there are only a few indices in the coefficients due to the restricted number of real solutions crossing the fermi level .
in fact , within the single - band model the calculation of the fourier coefficients can be extremely simplified , as shown in appendix [ fourier ] .
the analysis of such a simplified model , although primarily illustrative , reflects some properties common to the more general case .
two of these properties are @xmath108 and @xmath109 for odd values of @xmath110 .
we now focus on the rkky - limit expression for the coupling .
this is the limit of small ferromagnetic exchange splitting .
it is clear from eq.([frkky ] ) that unlike the coupling @xmath111 , the rkky expression involves neither logarithmic functions nor combinations of @xmath112 and @xmath113 .
in fact , @xmath114 simply contains a single product of the propagators @xmath16 and @xmath15 .
bearing eq.([frkky ] ) in mind we define @xmath115/2 i$ ] and from the expression for an arbitrary element @xmath21 in eq.([glm ] ) we write @xmath116 clearly , the above equation shows that the integrand @xmath114 can be manipulated and put in a fourier expansion form , similarly to @xmath8 in eq.([f ] ) .
however , the main difference is that in this case the number of terms involved in the expansion is limited , related to the maximum number of poles in eq.([glm ] ) , whereas the sum in eq.([f ] ) runs over an infinite number of terms .
such difference is due to the fact that the rkky - limit expression results from a perturbative approach corresponding to the lowest order term of an expansion .
all the terms included in @xmath114 are also included in the full expression @xmath8 .
the higher order terms correspond to oscillations that are either harmonics of the fundamental rkky behaviour or effectively new oscillation periods .
this point confirms the rkky theory as a limit of the more general approach used here .
we also point out that in this case , the argument of the exponentials has the form @xmath117 , involving only two wave vectors and with the constraint @xmath118 , being @xmath119 and @xmath120 .
this is a consequence of @xmath114 being the product of only two propagators , namely , @xmath16 and @xmath15 . in the more general case of @xmath8 ,
the infinite possibilities of combining the mentioned propagators does not pose such a restriction .    at this point
we raise the question of whether the rkky periods of the interlayer coupling remain valid as the exchange splitting of the ferromagnetic layers , associated with @xmath13 , is increased . the question can be reformulated as whether the higher order terms in @xmath8 , apart from the rkky harmonics , do contribute to the coupling .
the answer to this question is in the evaluation of the integrals in eq.([j ] ) .
having written @xmath8 ( and @xmath114 ) in terms of a fourier expansion , we can now make use of the stationary phase method@xcite , which yields an analytical expression for the coupling , asymptotically exact for thick spacers ( @xmath121 ) .    inserting eq.([f ] ) into ( [ j ] ) , we have @xmath122 we recall that the coefficients @xmath105 and the wave vectors @xmath66 depend on both integration variables @xmath1 and @xmath19 .
the stationary phase method shows that in the asymptotic limit of large spacer thickness the only contributions to the integral over @xmath1 arise from the neihbourhood of points which make the arguments of the exponentials stationary .
we call these points @xmath123 , where the superscript @xmath124 labels the different vectors .
furthermore , the integral over @xmath19 is also non - negligible only around the fermi energy @xmath79 .
hence , the wave vectors that effectively contribute to the coupling must satisfy the following condition , @xmath125 \
, = 0 \,\ , , \label{grad}\ ] ] where @xmath126 is the two - dimensional gradient in @xmath0-space .
in other words , the equation above gives the necessary conditions for a constructive interference between the electrons across the spacer .
the otherwise destructive interference does not contribute to the coupling .
eq.([grad ] ) simply selects the effective periods with which the coupling oscillates .
note that for @xmath78 , each wave vector @xmath127 represents a surface in the reciprocal space and when put together , the surfaces @xmath66 reproduce the spacer fermi surface . following this argument and bearing in mind that non - real values of @xmath66 strongly damp the oscillations , we stress that only real solutions must be taken into account .
the possible stationary solutions of eq.([grad ] ) reflect the lattice structure and are usually located at points of high symmetry , even though they may occur at general points of the 2-dimensional bz .    in such limit
we obtain an analytical expression for the coupling given by@xcite @xmath128 @xmath129 } \,\ , , \label{tspa}\ ] ] where @xmath130 , @xmath131 , and @xmath132 . here
we neglect the energy dependence of the fourier coefficients which in some cases @xcite can be important .
the factor @xmath133 takes the value @xmath134 for a minimum , @xmath135 for a maximum and @xmath136 for a saddle point of the surface @xmath137 .
the sum over @xmath124 regards all different stationary solutions and the inner sum over @xmath138 runs over the values allowed by the stationary phase condition .
the coupling oscillates with periods @xmath139 and their weights depend on geometric factors as well as on the fourier coefficients .
an important issue is the relationship between the fermi surface and the wave vectors that effectively contribute to the coupling .
the lowest order combinations amongst the possible wave vectors @xmath127 bear a direct correspondence with the fs .
indeed , this correspondence agrees with the rkky geometrical picture for selecting the oscillation periods of the interlayer coupling .
however , in the general case of a higher order combination of wave vectors the rrky relation no longer holds , and the effective wave vectors are not directly related to the spacer fs .
this is a very important result which shows that the geometrical criteria used for selecting the oscillation periods of the interlayer coupling are incomplete .
even though the wave vectors @xmath66 are directly related to the fs , the general wave vectors @xmath140 are not .
furthermore , note that if @xmath141 has only one oscillation period , the full expansion in eq .
( [ jspa ] ) contains merely harmonics of the fundamental rkky periods . in other words
, if the fs is cut in a single point by the line drawn from the origin perpendicular to the layers for a fixed @xmath1 , the rkky periods and its harmonics are the only ones present in the coupling . in fact , it explains the agreement between the periods predicted by the rkky and qwt in the models previously mentioned@xcite . for a multi - periodic @xmath142
though , where the fs is intersected in more than one point corresponding to incommensurate wave vectors , the higher order combinations of the wave vectors correspond neither to a rkky period nor to any of its harmonics , but to _ fundamentally new periods_.    multi - periodicity of the off - diagonal propagator is a necessary but not sufficient condition .
the argument above simply shows that non - rkky behaviour is possible in presence of multi - periodic @xmath143 . to find out whether it really occurs one has to solve eq.([grad ] ) and check whether there are real wave vectors @xmath66 for values of @xmath144,
,@xmath145 other than the ones obtained by the rkky theory .    in summary , the determination of the oscillation periods results from the analysis of the bulk spacer off - diagonal propagators where the relevant real wave vectors , under the stationary phase condition , are obtained from the band structure .
the relation between the spacer fs and the oscillation periods is the same as the geometrical rkky picture for the lowest order terms .
nevertheless , for higher order contributions a direct correspondence with the fs is not evident and the stationary phase condition displayed in eq.([grad ] ) determines the periods with which the coupling oscillates .
we have shown that oscillation periods other than the ones predicted by the rkky theory may arise . to illustrate the method and
unambiguously prove the existence and relevance of periods other than rkky ones , we next evaluate the particular case of the fcc lattice along the ( 110 ) direction within the single - band tight - binding model .
having presented the general method for determining the periods of the interlayer coupling , here we apply it to the particular case of a fcc(110 ) system within the single - band nearest - neighbour tight - binding model , which unmistakably shows the existence of non - rkky periods .
moreover , in the light of the qwt this system is interesting because of the difficulty in determining analytically the energies of the resonances and size quantized states in such a structure@xcite . for a single band
the notation introduced in the previous section becomes simpler due to the omission of the band index @xmath44 .
in addition , all the matrices over orbital indices become scalars .
we label the nearest neighbour hopping @xmath146 and with no loss of generality assume the on - site potential @xmath147 .
the bulk density of states of the fcc lattice is displayed in fig.[dos ] .
it is worth pointing out that there are different contributions to the interlayer coupling , depending on the position of the fermi energy inside the band .
three distinct regions are observed and their boundaries are shown by the vertical dashed lines in fig.[dos ] .
in addition to the traditional polyhedral bz , we make use of an auxiliary prismatic bz due to the 2-dimensional symmetry of the multilayers@xcite .
both zones are equivalent and enclose the same volume in reciprocal space .
the energy boundaries indicated correspond to fermi energies such that the fs just touches the two distinct brillouin zones .
more specifically , for @xmath148 the corresponding fs touches the prismatic bz , whereas @xmath149 is the exact fermi energy where the fs opens the necks which are familiar from the noble metals @xcite .    as previously mentioned , even within the nearest neighbour tight - binding model , in this case electrons are capable of hopping between nearest and next nearest planes .
the bulk band structure is then given by @xmath150 we assume the @xmath151 direction perpendicular to the layers .
the 2-dimensional bz over which the stationary solutions must be searched for is a rectangle defined by @xmath152 and @xmath153 , where @xmath154 and @xmath155 are the components of @xmath1 .
the explicit dependence of @xmath156 on @xmath1 is given by @xmath157 , @xmath158 and @xmath159 .
following the steps of the previous section , @xmath160 gives the poles which yield the periods of @xmath16 .
eq.([e ] ) can be rewritten in terms of a second degree polynomium in @xmath161 whose solutions @xmath162 and @xmath163 are given by @xmath164 where @xmath165 and @xmath67 is either 1 or 2 . nevertheless , the poles @xmath162 and @xmath163 are in the @xmath46-complex plane . by mapping the relationship between the two complex functions
we can uniquely relate one value of @xmath46 inside the integration contour to the corresponding value of @xmath161 and vice versa , as shown in fig.[map ] .
the equation above shows that @xmath166 and @xmath167 have opposite imaginary parts and therefore , following the maps in fig.[map ] , @xmath162 and @xmath163 have opposite real parts .
this confirms what has been said in the previous section concerning the position of two different wave vectors for a given band @xmath44 .
in addition , looking at eq.([cosq ] ) with @xmath78 it is clear that non - rkky behaviour can not arise in the bottom region of the band ( @xmath168 ) .
this is due to the fact that in such a region @xmath162 and @xmath163 can not both be real .
in fact , the corresponding fs in this region is spherical - like .
however , in the range @xmath169 , corresponding to the top regions inside the band , both @xmath162 and @xmath163 may be real indicating that non - rkky periods are possible .
having obtained the poles , from eqs.([glm ] ) and ( [ aa ] ) we have @xmath170 where @xmath171\sqrt{1 - \cos^2(q_j d)}\right\}^{-1 } \,\,.\ ] ] in the present case @xmath172 .
eq.([g0n2 ] ) shows that for values of @xmath1 and @xmath19 , for which @xmath162 and @xmath163 are real , @xmath16 oscillates with the superposition of two periods , @xmath173 and @xmath174 , which are in general incommensurate . in those cases
@xmath16 exhibits a quasi - periodic dependence on @xmath3 .
because there are only two poles in this case , the function @xmath8 , following eq.([f ] ) , becomes @xmath175 where the fourier coefficients are given by eq.([coefs ] ) . within the single - band model
, the fourier coefficients can be calculated in an alternative way , shown in appendix [ fourier ] .
following the appendix , we recall that the lowest order fourier coefficients correspond to the rkky - limit @xmath114 .
they are @xmath176 where @xmath177 , @xmath178 and @xmath179 .
more specifically , @xmath180 , @xmath181 , @xmath182 , and the property @xmath183 define all the six coefficients present in the rkky expression , where @xmath184 and @xmath185 are defined after eq.([g ] ) . beyond
the lowest order coefficients are the terms expected to contribute to the non - rkky behaviour .
it is then illustrative to present one of these terms , namely @xmath186 , @xmath187 \,\,.\ ] ]    the stationary phase condition in eq.([grad ] ) is rewritten as @xmath188 the condition above imposes that both gradients must be colinear and moreover , the ratio between their moduli must be a rational number .
the determination of the stationary points @xmath189 yielding the periods @xmath190 is rather tedious but straightforward .
as previously mentioned , the solutions are often located at highly symmetric points of the bz but more general solutions may occur .
nevertheless , because the rkky periods as well as the most important higher order terms come only from those high - symmetry points , we shall firstly focus on these solutions . across the whole energy band ,
four stationary points are found on the corners of the 2-dimensional irreducible bz .
they are @xmath191 , @xmath192 , @xmath193 and @xmath194 .    in the first region
@xmath195 is the only period , which is actually present along the entire band .
the graphical relation between the spacer fs and the oscillation period is displayed in fig.[fsef_3 ] , where the fs for an arbitrary energy ( @xmath196 ) is shown together with the wave vector @xmath197 and the cross section of the prismatic bz for @xmath198 .
the cross section is defined by @xmath152 and @xmath199 .
note that @xmath200 corresponds to the extremal wave vector spanning the fs , in according to the rkky picture .
clearly , higher order periods @xmath201 for @xmath202 are merely harmonics of the fundamental @xmath203 .    in the second region
an additional period @xmath204 arises .
similarly , the vector @xmath205 yields the fundamental period and possible higher combinations @xmath206 add no new terms but harmonics .
fig.[fsef_1 ] shows a cross section of the fs ( @xmath207 ) for @xmath208 .
the wave vectors @xmath209 and @xmath210 are highlighted and it is clear that @xmath211 satisfies the rkky criteria . at first glance
one could think , accordingly to fig.[fsef_1 ] , that @xmath212 and @xmath213 are also contributory wave vectors for the same reasons as in the first region .
nevertheless , by looking at the @xmath155-dependence of the fs we find that those vectors are not solutions of eq.([grad2 ] ) .
the most interesting case occurs in the top region , where the fs has necks resembling those of the noble metals .
in addition to @xmath195 at @xmath214 , other stationary solutions occur at @xmath215 and @xmath216 . at @xmath217 ,
analogously to the second region , the solution comes from @xmath218 and does not introduce new periods . at @xmath219
though , both gradients in eq.([grad2 ] ) vanish simultaneously allowing any values of @xmath220 and @xmath221 to satisfy the stationary phase condition .
therefore , the coupling oscillates with as many periods @xmath222 as there are non - zero coefficients @xmath223 . the lowest order @xmath224 , @xmath225 and @xmath226 correspond to the rkky periods and the geometrical relation between the wave vectors @xmath227 , @xmath228 and the fs in fig.[fsef1 ] confirms this point . for the present model we find that @xmath229 .
thus , the oscillation periods @xmath224 and @xmath225 can not be distinguished just by looking at discrete integer values of @xmath3 .
in addition , @xmath230 , which leads the third energy region to contain three non - equivalent rkky periods .
we recall that in fcc cu @xmath79 lies in the third energy region with fs necks .
a quantitative description of the oscillation periods for cu can be obtained within the present framework by going beyond nearest neighbours and using the tight - binding parameters of halse@xcite .
then @xmath226 and @xmath231 become distinct periods and , by taking into account the equivalence of @xmath224 and @xmath225 for a discrete lattice , we find exactly the four rkky periods of bruno and chappert @xcite .
however , because in general the wave vectors @xmath227 and @xmath232 are incommensurate , higher order periods are not simple harmonics of the rkky ones , unlike in the two lower regions .
in fact , the period @xmath233 does not correspond to any harmonics of the fundamental rkky periods .
furthermore , even though the wave vectors @xmath227 and @xmath232 separately have clear correspondences with the fs , as shown in fig.[fsef1 ] , the wave vector @xmath234 has not . from this argument
it becomes clear that higher order periods do not satisfy the geometrical picture of the rkky theory , having instead an indirect relation between the wave vectors and the fs .
fig.[periods ] summarizes the results obtained here by displaying the oscillation periods as a function of the fermi energy @xmath79 .
the full lines labeled from 1 to 5 are the fundamental rkky periods @xmath195 , @xmath204 , @xmath235 , @xmath225 and @xmath226 , respectively , and the dot - dashed line in the top region represents only one of the non - rkky periods , namely @xmath233 . recalling the relation @xmath236 , we see that the oscillation periods @xmath224 and @xmath225 can not be distinguished just by looking at discrete integer values of @xmath3 . still focusing on the top energy region ,
fig.[result ] exhibits the bilinear coupling @xmath32 at temperature @xmath237 as a function of the spacer thickness for @xmath238 and @xmath239 , where @xmath240 is the spacer band - width .
this value of @xmath79 is chosen so that @xmath241 is well separated from the rkky periods , as may be seen in fig.[periods ] .
the full line in fig.[result ] corresponds to the result obtained from eqs.([j ] ) and ( [ fwq ] ) , whereas the dashed line is the rkky approximation , following eqs.([j ] ) and ( [ frkky ] ) , scaled down by a factor of 8 for reasons of comparison . despite the agreement in the dominant long period , the difference in the fine structure of the oscillations reflects contributions beyond the fundamental rkky periods .
the evaluation of the stationary phase approximation in this case unmistakably proves the existence and relevance of the non - rkky periods .
fig.[coefsfig ] displays the absolute value of the ratio between some fourier coefficients @xmath223 and @xmath242 , the largest coefficient of a fundamental rkky period , as a function of @xmath13
. the full line corresponds to the fourier coefficient associated with the new period @xmath233 whereas the dashed and dot - dashed lines correspond to @xmath243 and @xmath244 , respectively , which are simple harmonics of the fundamental rkky periods . as expected for very small exchange splittings , the magnitudes of higher order coefficients relative to that of the fundamental rkky ones are negligible@xcite , indicating that non - rkky behaviour becomes more important as the exchange splitting is increased .
an interesting consequence is that , even though the periods are determined from the spacer fs , their relevances depend on the nature of the magnetic materials involved .
note that for @xmath245 the ratio @xmath246 .
this indicates that for such a value of @xmath13 , which is exactly the same as in fig .
[ result ] , the fourier coefficients are of the same order of magnitude ; the only reason why both periods do not have comparable weights is due to geometrical factors determined by the curvatures of the respective surfaces . in fact
, the curvature of the surface @xmath247 vanishes at @xmath215 , making it impossible to evaluate the stationary phase approximation for the period @xmath226 even though it undoubtedly indicates a strong contribution .
taking into account the geometrical curvatures when possible , we evaluate the stationary phase approximation and show in fig.[spa ] the separate contribution of some periods to the exchange coupling .
the full line is the new period @xmath233 whereas the dashed line and the the dot - dashed line represent @xmath195 and @xmath224 , respectively .
clearly , @xmath233 is as important as the rkky periods , except for the long dominant one .
it is worth pointing out that the rate of decay of the oscillation amplitude associated with the new periods is exactly the same as for the lowest order ones , falling off as @xmath248 for @xmath249 . concerning the actual amplitude of the oscillations ,
two points should be highlighted .
the strength of all periods depends rather critically on the matching of the bands in real materials , which is not well reproduced by our single - orbital model , and the omission of the energy dependence of the fourier coefficients could be serious for cu - based systems @xcite .
the solutions treated above all come from the high - symmetry points @xmath250 , @xmath251 , @xmath219 and @xmath217 .
note that fundamentally new periods arise but always in the presence of rkky ones .
they result from crossed mixtures of the fundamental wave vectors , which in turn yield the rkky periods .
nevertheless in general , as previously stated , solutions of eq.([grad2 ] ) away from high - symmetry points are found and we point out that their contributions are not necessarily associated with the existence of rkky periods .
in fact , it can be shown in the second energy region that energy - dependent solutions exist along the line @xmath252 with corresponding wave vectors @xmath253 and @xmath254 which do not yield any possible rkky period .
this indicates there are colinear gradients along that line satisfying eq.([grad2 ] ) for different values of @xmath220 and @xmath221 even though no rkky stationary solutions are obtained .
these solutions are found to be far less significant in their contribution to the exchange coupling than the highly symmetric ones .
in summary , we have shown that the rkky theory is not capable of predicting all the oscillation periods of the interlayer coupling , as generally believed . the actual relation between the periods and
the spacer fs is more subtle than the rkky geometrical picture .
even though the lowest order periods indeed correspond to the rkky predictions , non - negligible higher order terms arise and do not bear any direct correspondence to the fs . instead , they correspond to indirect combinations of fundamental wave vectors , which in turn , may or may not yield rkky periods .
the appearance of non - rkky oscillations clearly requires the multi - periodicity of the bulk spacer off - diagonal propagator as a function of the spacer thickness , although this is not a sufficient condition .
in addition , real solutions of the stationary phase condition must exist in order to have a constructive interference between the electrons across the system .
the otherwise destructive interference damps the oscillation not contributing to the coupling .
finally , if such behaviour can be found even within the single - band model , for which the fs is simple and has a single sheet , we may expect the occurrence of non - rkky periods in systems with more elaborate fs .
surfaces with more than one sheet , such as non - magnetic transition metals for instance , are possible candidates for presenting such periods . in those cases ,
the interpretation of the results in terms of the rkky theory may be misleading .        alternatively , within the single - band model ,
the fourier coefficients @xmath176 in section [ fcc110 ] can be calculated in the following way .
bearing in mind the equivalence between @xmath172 , eq.([g ] ) can be concisely written as @xmath255 and analogously , @xmath256 the product of eqs.([gona ] ) and ( [ gnoa ] ) is @xmath257 writing the logarithmic function as a series , we have from eq.([fwq ] ) @xmath258^\ell \right\ } \,\
, , \label{fprime}\ ] ] where @xmath259 .
we recall that the summations above have indices with different limits . whereas the external summation index @xmath37 runs over the integers starting from @xmath260 onwards , the inner indices @xmath67 and @xmath261 have zero as their initial values .
eq.([fprime ] ) can be manipulated and rewritten as @xmath262 for a fixed @xmath37 there are twice as many inner summations , running from @xmath263 and @xmath264 as far as @xmath265 and @xmath266 .
we define the integer @xmath267 as the exponent of the function @xmath268 in eq.([fprimea ] ) , i.e. , @xmath269 .
note that @xmath267 runs over the positive integers greater than zero .
squaring @xmath16 in eq.([g0n2 ] ) and inserting it into eq.([fprimea ] ) we obtain the function @xmath8 in terms of a fourier expansion .
clearly , the exponential @xmath270 arises from terms of @xmath271 such that @xmath272 .
the number of terms in turn depends on the number of possible combinations between the implicit indices @xmath67 , @xmath261 and @xmath37 , and the larger @xmath267 is , the more combinations are possible .    for @xmath273 for instance ,
the only possible combination of the indices is @xmath274 and @xmath260 .
the terms coming from this contribution correspond to the rkky - limit expression in eq.([frkky ] ) , which indicates @xmath114 as a subset of the full expression @xmath8 and confirms the rkky theory as a limit of the more general approach used here @xcite .    for @xmath275 ,
more combinations are possible .
in addition to @xmath276 and @xmath277 , four other combinations come from @xmath260 and @xmath278 .
note that the lowest order coefficients are easily calculated through this alternative method but as the exponent @xmath267 is increased , more terms arise and increase the difficulty .
nevertheless , because we are searching for periods other than the rkky ones , the lowest order terms beyond the rkky - limit are expected to be the important corrections to the coupling .    finally , from the discussion above , two properties of the fourier coefficients are straightforwardly obtained .
they are @xmath108 and @xmath109 unless @xmath110 is even .
these properties are also valid in the general case of section [ general ]
.    d. m. edwards , j. mathon , r. b. muniz and m. s. phan , phys . rev . lett .
* 67 * , 493 ( 1991 ) .
d. m. edwards , j. mathon , r. b. muniz and m. s. phan , j. phys . : condens .
matter * 3 * 4941 ( 1991 ) j. mathon , murielle villeret and d. m. edwards , j. phys . : condens .
matter * 4 * , 9873 ( 1992 ) p. bruno and c. chappert , phys .
* 67 * , 1602 ( 1991 ) p. bruno and c. chappert , phys .
b * 46 * , 261 ( 1992 ) j. dalbuquerque e castro , m. s. ferreira and r. b. muniz , phys . rev .
b * 49 * , 16062 ( 1994 ) m. s. ferreira , j. dalbuquerque e castro , d. m. edwards and j. mathon , j.m.m.m . * 154 * , l1 ( 1996 ) j. dalbuquerque e castro , j. mathon , murielle villeret and d. m. edwards , phys . rev .
b * 51 * , 12876 ( 1995 ) m. s. ferreira , j. dalbuquerque e castro , r. b. muniz and d. m. edwards , j. phys . : condens .
matter * 6 * , l619 ( 1994 ) d. m. edwards , j. mathon and r. b. muniz , phys .
b * 50 * 16066 ( 1994 ) b. heinrich _
et al_. , phys .
b * 44 * , 9348 ( 1991 ) a. v. kozlov and w. a. harrison , phys . rev .
b * 48 * 12334 ( 1993 ) m. r. halse , trans .
london a * 265 * , 507 ( 1969 ) n. w. ashcroft and n. d. mermin , solid state physics ( 1976 ) d. m. edwards , a.m. robinson and j. mathon , j.m.m.m . *
140 - 144 * , 157 ( 1995 ) j. dalbuquerque e castro , j. mathon , murielle villeret and a. umerski , phys .
b * 53 * , 13306 ( 1996 ) p. bruno , phys . rev .
b * 52 * , 411 ( 1995 )