the spin degree of freedom of electrons in semiconductor nanostructures has attracted much interest recently . besides its applications in spintronics@xcite , which makes use of the spin in the same way as the charge in conventional devices
, there has been considerable interest in the quantum coherence of spin in different materials and geometries at the nanoscale @xcite .
the long coherence times measured some time ago in semiconductors @xcite supported the idea of quantum computing with spins localized in quantum dots @xcite  a rapidly growing field now , where recent experimental progress has been remarkable @xcite .
electron spins in semiconductor nanostructures , however , are not decoupled from the charge degree of freedom , one of the primary reasons for this coupling being the spin - orbit interaction .
this coupling leads to many interesting phenomena in the physics of semiconductors @xcite , an important one being the ability to control the spin of the electron with electric fields acting on its charge degrees of freedom @xcite . in quantum dots
the spin - orbit interaction manifests itself as a weak perturbation when compared with the confinement energy .
the measure of smallness is given by the ratio between the dot radius @xmath2 and the spin - orbit length , @xmath3the distance over which an electron travels and thereby precesses by an angle @xmath4 about the intrinsic magnetic field induced by the spin - orbit interaction . despite its smallness
the spin - orbit interaction is very important for the coherence of the spin dynamics .
for example , spin - orbit interaction allows for coupling of the electron spin to ( bosonic ) environments , such as phonons @xcite or particle - hole excitations in quantum point contacts @xcite , which in turn causes relaxation and decoherence of the spins .
moreover , electrons being charged particles interact via the long range coulomb forces with each other , even if they are confined to well - separated quantum dots with no overlap of their wave functions . through this electrostatic coupling and in combination with the spin orbit interaction , the spins of two electrons located in different dots become coupled even in the absence of tunneling between the dots .    in this paper
we provide a detailed analysis of such an effective spin - spin interaction for lateral quantum dots in a configuration as shown in fig .
we will see that the origin of this interaction is the `` tidal '' effect each of the electrons produces on the charge distribution of the other electron via electrostatic forces .
because of the spin - orbit interaction , the electric dipole moment ( as well as higher moments ) in each dot couples to its electron spin . as a result ,
the two spins experience an interaction resembling a magnetic dipole - dipole interaction@xcite with effective magnetic moments which can be strongly enhanced by up to a factor of @xmath5 compared to the bohr magneton .
the magnitude of the spin - spin coupling obtained via this spin - electric effect can be efficiently controlled and even completely suppressed by adjusting external parameters such as the magnetic field direction , strength , and inter - dot distance .
the spin - spin interaction can , in principle , be used to perform two - qubit operations as required in the spin - based quantum computing scheme@xcite , because it entangles spins and can easily be switched on and off .
we note that a similar mechanism for spin interaction based on electrostatic coupling was studied very recently in ref .   for vertically coupled quantum dots , and in ref .
for the special case of one - dimensional quantum dots formed in semiconducting nanowires . besides the differences in geometry and dimensionality , both of these works treat only the case of weak coulomb interaction ( compared to the level spacing ) , while we treat here also the opposite limit of strong coulomb interaction where new and interesting features emerge . in the limiting case of strongly elliptical dots
we recover the one - dimensional results obtained in ref .  .
we emphasize again that in the present study we exclude tunneling and thus the type of spin interaction studied in the following is fundamentally different from the heisenberg exchange interaction for which the presence of electron tunneling between the dots is crucial@xcite .
similarly , the combined effect of heisenberg exchange interaction and spin - orbit coupling@xcite is also based on tunneling and should be carefully distinguished from the spin - orbit effect studied here .
we also note that the heisenberg exchange coupling allows typically for much stronger spin - spin coupling than the electrostatically induced one .
for instance , in gaas dots the heisenberg exchange can reach values on the order of @xmath6 mev @xmath7 mev , which , as we shall see , exceeds the electrostatically induced spin coupling by three to four orders of magnitude .
nevertheless , the electrostatic spin coupling can prove useful for cases where it is difficult to get sufficient wave function overlap ( needed for large heisenberg exchange ) , and , moreover , it is also important to understand the electrostatic spin - effects in detail in order to get control over possible interference effects between different types of spin coupling .
this will be for example of importance for spin qubit applications in order to minimize spin decoherence and gate errors .
finally , in view of experimental tests we propose a scheme to measure the spin - spin interaction in a double dot setup with a nearby charge detector .
we propose to combine the spin - measurement technique of ref .   with the entangling property of the spin - spin interaction and
present a gate pulsing sequence that enables one to access the coupling constant in the time domain by measuring the occupation probability of a zeeman sublevel .
the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
[ themodellabel ] we introduce our model for the quantum - dot system and its basic hamiltonian . in sec .
[ sscouplinglabel ] we derive the effective spin - spin coupling hamiltonian within our model . in this section
we analyze in detail the two limiting cases of weak and strong coulomb interaction , and obtain various forms of the spin coupling as function of magnetic field strength and orientation , as well as of the interdot distance .
the most general form of the spin coupling tensor is given in the appendix . in sec .
[ measurementschemelabel ] , we propose a scheme to measure the spin - spin coupling . there , we also discuss the effect of the hyperfine interaction with the nuclear spins on the measurement scheme .
finally , in sec .
[ discconclabel ] we discuss our results and end with some conclusions .
our system consists of two electrons each of which is localized in a quantum dot , and the two dots are separated from each other , without tunneling between them .
the system is composed of two gate - defined quantum dots in a two - dimensional semiconductor layer ( @xmath8 gaas or inas ) .
a schematics of the system we consider is shown in fig 1 .
we model the system by a harmonic confinement potential , which , for simplicity is assumed to be the same for both dots .
each dot is assumed to contain one electron with charge @xmath9 and spin @xmath10 , with @xmath11 being the pauli matrices .
the model hamiltonian consisting of several terms reads @xmath12 where @xmath13 is the energy of the two electrons in the confinement potentials @xmath14 here , @xmath15 is the 2d kinetic momentum of the @xmath16-th electron at position @xmath17 , @xmath18 the effective mass , @xmath19 the speed of light , @xmath20 the confinement potential for the @xmath16-th electron which is assumed to be harmonic and isotropic , and @xmath21 is the electromagnetic vector potential .
the strength of the confinement energy is given by the frequency @xmath22 .
the second term on the right - hand side of eq .
( [ 1 ] ) is the zeeman energy of the two electrons , @xmath23 the third term in eq .
( @xmath24 ) is the unscreened coulomb interaction between the two electrons , @xmath25 where @xmath26 is the dielectric constant of the material and @xmath1 is the geometric distance between the two dots , namely between the potential minima ( center ) of the dots . with this choice
, we measure the distance for each electron from its own dot center . the last term in eq .
( @xmath24 ) is the spin - orbit coupling which for strong @xmath27-confinement is given by @xmath28 , \label{5}\ ] ] being the sum of the dresselhaus term @xcite ( @xmath29 ) coming from bulk inversion asymmetry and the rashba term @xcite ( @xmath30 ) coming from structure inversion asymmetry .
we assume the same coefficients @xmath29 and @xmath30 for both dots .
it is convenient to work with center - of - mass and relative coordinates @xcite , as the coulomb interaction couples only to the relative ones and the solution of the center - of - mass part is straightforward @xcite .
this then involves the standard substitutions @xmath31 , @xmath32 , @xmath33 , @xmath34 , and @xmath35 and @xmath36 .
we now turn our attention to the spin - orbit interaction . as was shown in ref . , the spin - orbit coupling gives non - zero first order effects only if a magnetic field is present , as a consequence of the kramers degeneracy . in order to describe the effective first order spin - orbit term in the presence of a magnetic field
we make use of the schrieffer - wolff ( unitary ) transformation@xcite @xmath37 where @xmath38 is chosen such that @xmath39 , with the projector operator @xmath40 satisfying @xmath41 @xmath42 , and @xmath43 .
the hamiltonian @xmath44 ( or @xmath45 in center - of - mass and relative coordinates ) .
the hamiltonian @xmath46 is diagonal in the basis of @xmath47 and has the same energy spectrum as the hamiltonian @xmath48 . in first order of the spin - orbit interaction @xmath49 the transformation generator
becomes @xmath50 , where @xmath51 is the dot liouvillean , @xmath52 $ ] , @xmath42 .
evaluating this expression explicitly we obtain @xmath53 with @xmath54 . in this lowest order the transformed hamiltonian
@xmath55 becomes @xmath56 with @xmath57 where @xmath58 = e_z(1-p)[\bm{l}\times(\bm{\xi}_r\pm\bm{\xi}_r/2)]\cdot\bm{\sigma}_{1,2}. \label{8}\ ] ] in eq .
( @xmath59 ) @xmath60 is the magnetic field direction vector , @xmath61 is the zeeman energy and the vectors @xmath62 and @xmath63 are given by @xmath64 and @xmath65 , respectively .
the new coordinates correspond to a rotation by an angle @xmath66 with respect to the coordinate frame in which the direction of the @xmath67-vector is associated with the @xmath68-axis in the @xmath69 plane so that the final expressions have the simplest form @xcite . here , @xmath70 is the angle between the @xmath71 frame in fig . 1 and the normal axes of the crystal . the spin - orbit lengths @xmath72 are given in the form @xmath73 .
we are now in a position to derive the coupling between the two spins .
this is achieved by performing a second schrieffer - wolff ( sw2 ) transformation which excludes the first order contribution in spin - orbit interaction with no diagonal matrix elements .
the new transformed hamiltonian has the form @xmath74 , with @xmath75 given by @xmath76 we assume now that the zeeman energy is smaller than the orbital confining energy , @xmath77 , which is usually the case for electrons in quantum dots , such that we can neglect in eq .
( @xmath78 ) the zeeman liouvillean @xmath79 ( for spin - orbit effects due to level crossing see ref . ) .
in second - order in spin - orbit coupling the effective hamiltonian @xmath80 becomes @xmath81 .
\label{10}\ ] ] the last term in eq .
( @xmath82 ) contains the desired spin - spin coupling between the two spins .
however , besides this interaction it also contains some self - interaction terms which renormalizes only the zeeman splitting .
we will not study those terms since they are of no practical interest in the case of identical dots .
we consider a general magnetic field @xmath83 , where @xmath84 is the angle between the magnetic field and the @xmath27-axis perpendicular to the 2deg plane and @xmath85 the angle between the in - plane component of the magnetic field and the @xmath68-direction ( fig .
1 ) . the interaction between the two spins has the most general form @xmath86 , \quad   i , j=1,2.\label{11}\ ] ] the spin hamiltonian is obtained by averaging over the orbital ground state , @xmath87 .
we then obtain @xmath88 where @xmath89|0\rangle,\;\ ; a , b = x , y , z.\ ] ] we note that there is no component of the spin along the magnetic field direction as a consequence of the vector product in the tensor @xmath90 . by diagonalizing the above tensor
, we obtain for the hamiltonian @xmath91 the reduced expression @xmath92 where the couplings @xmath93 depend on the magnetic field orientation and on the functions @xmath94|0\rangle$ ] , with @xmath95 ( for explicit expressions see the appendix ) .
thus , the effective spin - spin interaction is highly anisotropic , and , in general , of the @xmath0-type .
we note in particular that for an in - plane magnetic field ( @xmath96 ) , the spin hamiltonian reduces to the ising hamiltonian , @xmath97 ( in a transverse magnetic field ) .
next , we rewrite @xmath91 in terms of raising / lowering spin operators @xmath98 @xmath99 with @xmath100 and @xmath101 .
we recall now that the _ full _ spin hamiltonian includes the zeeman energy , given in eq .
( [ 3 ] ) , which leads to a large energy gap with @xmath102 .
we will find below that typically @xmath103 under our assumption that @xmath77 and @xmath104 . as a consequence
, we can neglect in eq .
( @xmath105 ) the terms proportional to @xmath106 since they cause transitions between different zeeman levels of the total spin .
the relevant spin - spin interaction , @xmath107 , which acts only within the @xmath108 subspace , becomes then @xmath109 thus , we are left with the task of calculating the coupling strengths @xmath93 and @xmath110 . because of the coulomb term , eq .
( @xmath111 ) , this can not be done exactly and some approximations are required .
they will depend on the ratio @xmath112 between the coulomb interaction strength , @xmath113 , and the orbital level spacing , @xmath114 , giving @xmath115 , with @xmath116 being the dot radius and @xmath117 - the bohr radius in the material .
in other words , the parameter @xmath112 will dictate the physics of the system , and from now on we will speak of the ratio @xmath118 as being the coulomb interaction strength ( representing in fact the true coulomb strength for touching dots ) . for making the following analysis more transparent we focus on the case with only rashba spin - orbit coupling ( @xmath119 ) .
the generalization to the case with both rashba and dresselhaus terms present is straightforward , but at the cost of more complicated expressions ( see appendix ) .
one interesting case is met when @xmath120 , such that the coulomb interaction can be treated as a perturbation compared to the orbital level spacing . in this case
, one can retain only the first order contribution from the coulomb interaction , which translates into the approximation @xmath121 . making use of this and after some algebra we obtain for the spin - spin coupling the following expression @xmath122 where the operators @xmath123 , @xmath16=1,2 , are the charge density distribution modifications in each dot as a consequence of the spin - orbit interaction .
they are defined as @xmath124 with @xmath125 being the charge density operator in the absence of spin - orbit interaction and @xmath126 the one in the presence of spin - orbit interaction , with @xmath127 for the present approximation . from eq .
( @xmath128 ) we see that the spin interaction results from a coulomb - type of coupling between two charge density distributions which themselves depend on spin .
let us now analyze in more detail eq .
( @xmath128 ) .
the first task is to find @xmath129 , for @xmath130 , namely the spin - orbit induced charge distribution or the spin - dependent charge distributions for each dot . in order to do this ,
we give first some important relations valid in the case of harmonic confining potential , relations which are used in the following for the derivation of the main results @xmath131 @xmath132 @xmath133 making use of the relations eqs .
( @xmath134-@xmath135 ) and within the first order of spin - orbit coupling , @xmath136 @xmath137 $ ] , we obtain @xmath138,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\label{53}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath139 being the bare charge density in the dot corresponding to the ground state and which assumes the well - known form for harmonic potentials @xmath140 we note that when there exist a perpendicular component of the magnetic field , the dot radius is renormalized due to the orbital effect of the magnetic field @xmath141 , with @xmath142 ( @xmath143 , @xmath144 ) .
however , we will still refer to @xmath2 as being the dot radius , with the appropriate expression depending on the magnetic field orientation .
we could now insert the expression eq .
( @xmath145 ) for @xmath129 in eq .
( @xmath128 ) and compute directly the spin hamiltonian .
however , working with the coulomb potential , it is more convenient to work with the center - of - mass and relative coordinates and for simplicity the @xmath68-axis along the inter - dot direction @xmath67 .
assuming for simplicity a perpendicular magnetic field , the spin hamiltonian @xmath91 takes the form @xmath146 with the electronic densities @xmath147 and @xmath148 . in eq .
( @xmath149 ) there are no mixed terms like @xmath150 since those terms vanish because of the odd symmetry of the integrands in the case of harmonic confinement , which reflects inversion symmetry .
the limit of in - plane magnetic field is obtained very easy from eq .
( @xmath149 ) by substituting the denominator with @xmath151\sigma_{\tilde{y}}^1\sigma_{\tilde{y}}^2 $ ] .
[ for general field orientation the expression for @xmath91 is more complicated ( see appendix ) . ] in order to make the following analysis more transparent , we introduce the dimensionless coordinates @xmath152 and @xmath153 .
the integration over the center - of - mass coordinates is now straightforward and the reduced expression for the spin hamiltonian becomes @xmath154 for a perpendicular magnetic field and @xmath155 for an in - plane magnetic field oriented at an angle @xmath85 with respect to the inter - dot distance vector @xmath67 .
the energy differences @xmath156 are given by @xmath157 @xmath158 the ground state and the first excited states of the dots in relative coordinates give rise to different charge distributions ( @xmath159 , @xmath160 , and @xmath161 , respectively ) , and thus to different potential energies seen by a test charge at a distance @xmath1 ( along @xmath68 ) away from the center of the charge distribution ( in relative coordinates ) .
@xmath162 are the differences between these potential energies .    before studying the distance dependence of the spin hamiltonian @xmath91 ( determined by @xmath156 ) in the entire range of distances , it is instructive to see how the expression eq .
( @xmath128 ) behaves in the large distance limit , @xmath163 , and to make some comparison with the magnetic dipolar interaction in vacuum @xcite .
we perform a multipole expansion of the hamiltonian in eq .
( @xmath128 ) .
the first non - zero contribution takes the form of a dipole - dipole interaction between two spin - dependent electric dipoles , or phrased differently , the interaction between two charge - induced magnetic dipoles @xmath164 with the dipole moments @xmath165 given by @xmath166=\bar{\bar{\mu}}\,\bm{\sigma}_i\;,i=1,2.\ ] ] here , the trace is taken over the orbital degrees of freedom with @xmath167 and @xmath168 being the tensor corresponding to an effective spin - orbit induced magneton @xmath169 we see from eq .
( @xmath170 ) that the tensor @xmath168 depends on the magnetic field orientation with respect to the 2deg and that it is also anisotropic , in contrast to the usual isotropic bohr magneton @xmath171 ( @xmath172 is the mass of the free electron and @xmath19 the speed of light ) .
we note that the @xmath27-component of the induced magnetic moment ( with @xmath173 ) vanishes , @xmath136 @xmath174 .
let us quantify the strength of @xmath168 by the norm @xmath175 , @xmath136 @xmath176 we compare now @xmath177 with @xmath178 .
first of all , we note that @xmath177 vanishes when there is no zeeman splitting .
however , for finite magnetic fields , @xmath177 can exceed @xmath178 by many orders of magnitude in the case of quantum dots . to give an estimate , we assume @xmath179 , @xmath180 ( @xmath181 ) and @xmath182 , @xmath183 for gaas quantum dots . with these values , and taking @xmath184 ( perpendicular magnetic field )
we obtain @xmath185    we describe now in more detail the limit of large distance between the dots . from eqs .
( @xmath186 ) and ( @xmath149 ) we find for @xmath163 @xmath187 for a perpendicular magnetic field , and @xmath188 for an in - plane magnetic field , with the coupling strength @xmath189 having the form @xmath190 from eq .
( @xmath191 ) we see a large distance decay @xmath192 , @xmath136 a long range type behavior .
we note also that the large distance result in eq .
( @xmath191 ) does not depend anymore on the orbital effect of the magnetic field .
working instead with the effective hamiltonian defined in eq .
( @xmath193 ) , the effective coupling strength @xmath110 for arbitrary magnetic field is given by @xmath194.\label{ferro}\ ] ] we note that the spin coupling can range from maximally ferromagnetic interaction with @xmath195 at @xmath96 and @xmath196 to maximally antiferromagnetic interaction with @xmath197 at @xmath96 and @xmath198 , and with @xmath110 passing through zero for certain angles .
next , we consider the case of arbitrary distance but still with small coulomb interaction strength as defined at the beginning of this section . considering @xmath107 defined in eq .
( @xmath193 ) we obtain @xmath199 where @xmath200.\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\label{fa}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the function @xmath201 is plotted in fig . 2 for different angles @xmath84 and @xmath85 .
as for the large distance limit in eq .
( @xmath202 ) , a similar but more complicated ferromagnetic - antiferromagnetic crossover behavior occurs as a function of the field orientation .
however , in this case this behavior can also be induced by changing the distance between the dots @xmath1 ( see fig .
[ fig2 ] ) .
( @xmath203 ) suggests that the condition @xmath204 is too restrictive . instead , the weaker condition @xmath205 is sufficient for the approximation to be valid .
2 shows a breakdown of the dipolar approximation ( i.e. of the @xmath206 decay ) , occurring at a dot separation @xmath207 for perpendicular magnetic fields ( @xmath184 ) , and also a cancellation of this interaction for some given distance , which is around @xmath208 .
this shows that the sum of the two electrostatic energy differences @xmath209 has a non - monotonic behavior as a function of the distance @xmath1 . actually , only @xmath210 is non - monotonic , whereas @xmath211 has a positive value which decreases with @xmath1 , as can be seen from fig .
if an in - plane magnetic field is applied along @xmath212 ( @xmath196 ) or @xmath68 ( @xmath198 ) direction , we obtain a dependence only either on @xmath211 or on @xmath210 . accordingly
, @xmath213 will be larger in some parameter range as compared with the case of perpendicular fields , see fig .
2 .    at this point
it is instructive to consider numerical estimates for the coupling strength @xmath110 . for this
we consider gaas quantum dots for which we assume @xmath214 , @xmath215 , @xmath216 , @xmath217 , and also consider @xmath218 , @xmath219 ( @xmath220 ) and @xmath221 .
these estimations lead to a coupling strength @xmath222 , which lead to a time dynamics of the order of @xmath223 .
if this time scale is longer than the decoherence times in gaas quantum dots , the system will be insensitive to the coherent dynamics induced by the coupling @xmath110 .
shorter time scales are obtained for materials with larger spin - orbit coupling such as inas .
the spin - orbit length @xmath3 in this material is comparable with a typical dot size of about @xmath224 . even though our perturbative approach starts to get unreliable in this case
, it still can provide a rough estimate for the coupling strength .
for inas we have @xmath225 , @xmath226 , @xmath217 , @xmath227 , and we choose @xmath228 , @xmath229 and @xmath230 . with those values we obtain for the coupling @xmath231 , which corresponds to a switching time of about @xmath232 for a swap of the spin states of electron one and electron two . this time scale for the spin dynamics is shorter than the expected spin decoherence time in such quantum dots .
thus , this interaction mechanism provides a useful way for the dynamical control of the spin - spin coupling .
as discussed before , for an in - plane magnetic field the coupling constant could even be higher , depending on the angle of the magnetic field with respect to the inter - dot axis .
we briefly generalize the previous results to elliptical dot shapes .
this will also allow us to study the one - dimensional limit and recover previous results obtained for one - dimensional nanowires@xcite .
we consider elliptical dots which are characterized by the frequencies @xmath233 and @xmath234 corresponding to the @xmath68 and @xmath212 directions , respectively . in this case , eq .
( @xmath191 ) is replaced by @xmath235 where the electrostatic energies @xmath236 become now @xmath237 @xmath238 with the charge density distribution function , expressed in relative coordinates , @xmath239 for perpendicular magnetic fields and elliptical dots the lengths @xmath240 are given by @xcite @xmath241 where @xmath242 , @xmath243 , and @xmath244 with the explicit expressions for @xmath245 , @xmath246 , and @xmath247 @xmath248 @xmath249 @xmath250 taking now also the limit of strongly elliptical dots , @xmath136 @xmath251 , we see that this is equivalent to keeping only one component of the spin interaction , namely the @xmath252 part , and that the orbital effect of the magnetic field drops out .
the resulting hamiltonian then becomes @xmath253 considering now the large distance limit , @xmath163 , analogously to eq .
( @xmath254 ) , our result reduces formally to the one in ref .
, @xmath136 @xmath255 the above expression , eq .
( @xmath256 ) , could be obtained directly from eq .
( @xmath257 ) since within the considered limit there is no orbital effect of the perpendicular magnetic field on the spin - spin interaction .
we note that in this limit the resulting spin - spin coupling takes the form of an ising interaction which , together with single qubit rotations , can be used@xcite to efficiently perform cnot gate operations between two qubits .
we finally note that in one dimensions the rashba interaction can be treated exactly , leading to a renormalization of the @xmath258-factor@xcite , @xmath259 .
this exact treatment is no longer possible in the 2d case considered here , except for the special case@xcite when @xmath260 and the problem becomes effectively 1d@xcite .
we turn now to the more involved case of strong coulomb interaction strength , @xmath261 , which can not be treated perturbatively . however , some approximations are still possible and we will explore two of them in the following section .
the first approximation consists in reducing the two electron system to two classical point - charge particles .
the classical equilibrium condition will be obtained by minimizing the total potential energy of the two particles . by doing this
, the motion of the electrons will take place around the new equilibrium positions obtained from the equation @xmath262 where @xmath1 is the initial geometric distance and @xmath263 the effective distance between the electrons in classical equilibrium .
however , we are interested in the motion around the equilibrium position , which means that for small deviations , we may substitute the full coulomb interaction with an effective one , remembering that @xmath34 , @xmath264 we note that the coordinates are measured now with respect to the new equilibrium position . within this approximation ,
the relative hamiltonian @xmath265 is replaced with the new , renormalized one , @xmath266
@xmath267    with the definition @xmath268 and @xmath269 given by the expressions @xmath270 we see that this approximation leads only to a renormalization of the orbital frequencies of the relative hamiltonian .
we proceed now to develop a second alternative for treating the coulomb interaction , namely a variational method based on the same picture of classical equilibrium .
this consists in substituting the full coulomb interaction term with the same type of expression like in eq .
( @xmath271 ) , but with the effective distance obtained from the variational ansatz . for this
we minimize the expectation value of the orbital hamiltonian , @xmath272 , in the ground state of the effective relative hamiltonian @xmath266[eq .
( @xmath273 ) ] with respect to the effective distance @xmath263 .
this leads to the following equation @xmath274    where @xmath275 is the ground state belonging to @xmath266 , @xmath136 @xmath276 , with @xmath277 the ground state energy .
since we are dealing with harmonic oscillators , those wave functions are known .
however , eq . ( @xmath278 ) for the effective distance @xmath263 can be solved only numerically .
we plot in fig .
3 the results obtained for the effective distance @xmath263 as a function of different parameters in both cases , namely the variational result from eq . ( @xmath278 ) and
also the result obtained from the classical equilibrium condition in eq .
( @xmath271 ) .
we see in fig .
3 that there is very good agreement between the two approaches in a wide parameter range and moreover , that the effective distance within the variational approach is larger then the one obtained from classical equilibrium , that means a lower ground state energy .
we note that a perpendicular magnetic field practically does not change the curves in fig .
3 ( not shown ) on a large range of magnetic field strengths ( @xmath279 ) , which means that the effective distance is to a very good approximation independent of the applied magnetic field . in order to verify the accuracy of our variational method
, we checked also the numerical fidelity , defined as the overlap of the wave functions in the variational case with the exact ( almost , in the sense of perturbation theory ) wave function .
although the problem contains no small parameter , we can still define small matrix elements compared with level spacing in a numerical sense . for this
we write the full relative hamiltonian in the following way @xmath280 with the effective coulomb interaction @xmath281 ( see eq . ( [ 20 ] ) ) expressed now also in terms of the new equilibrium coordinates ( introduced after eq . ( [ 20 ] ) ) , @xmath282 we show now that this term leads to small matrix elements so that indeed @xmath283 , where the energies @xmath284 and @xmath277 are the n - eigenvalue and ground - state energy of the hamiltonian @xmath266 , respectively . to see this
numerically we introduce the fidelity @xmath285 where @xmath286 and @xmath275 are the ground state wave functions of the full hamiltonian @xmath265 and @xmath266 , respectively .
we now estimate the fidelity @xmath287 by using perturbation theory to find the true ground - state wave function @xmath286 from the effective one @xmath275 @xmath288 where we retain only terms to first order in @xmath281 . taking into account eq .
( @xmath289 ) we obtain the infidelity , @xmath290 , namely the deviation of the true ground state wave function from the effective one @xmath291 we plot in fig .
4 the infidelity @xmath290 as a function of the effective distance @xmath263 for fixed coulomb strength , @xmath118 .
we see that the infidelity takes very small values ( @xmath292 ) on the considered range , for two different coulomb strengths , which shows that our variational approach is very accurate .
we can now evaluate the spin - spin interaction within this approximation . since we are now dealing with harmonic potentials only , the problem of finding @xmath93 from eq .
( @xmath293 ) becomes straightforward .
however , in the derivation of the spin hamiltonian we need again some relations , similar to eq .
( @xmath134 ) and eq .
( @xmath294 ) , but for the present case with the harmonic oscillator renormalized .
these relations read @xmath295 @xmath296 @xmath297 @xmath298 making use of the relations eq .
( @xmath299 ) and eq .
( @xmath300 ) , and also with the effective spin - orbit interaction expressed in the center - of - mass and relative coordinates , see eq .
( @xmath59 ) , the spin - hamiltonian @xmath91 takes the form @xmath301,\label{62}\ ] ] for the case of a perpendicular magnetic field and @xmath302 for the case of an in - plane magnetic field which makes an angle @xmath85 with the inter - dot distance direction .
the @xmath303 is along the in - plane direction perpendicular to the in - plane magnetic field .
we see that the spin hamiltonian depends on the coulomb interaction part via the difference between the inverse of the renormalized frequencies @xmath304 and the bare one @xmath22 .
as expected , when there is no renormalizations of the bare frequencies ( no coulomb interaction ) the interaction vanishes .
referring again to the effective spin hamiltonian @xmath107 from eq .
( @xmath193 ) , we obtain for the coupling @xmath110 for arbitrary magnetic field orientations @xmath305 where @xmath306    one can see from fig . 5b
that for in - plane magnetic fields one obtains quite large values for @xmath307 in the two limiting cases @xmath196 and @xmath198 . changing the magnetic field orientation in - plane
one can tune the coupling strength @xmath110 from negative to positive values , @xmath136 from ferromagnetic to antiferromagnetic regime , and make it vanish for the angle ( for in - plane magnetic field ) @xmath308 in the case of a perpendicular magnetic field , cf .
5a , we see that the coupling shows a non - monotonic behavior as a function of distance @xmath1 , and , moreover , @xmath110 vanishes for some given distance , which for @xmath309 is about @xmath310 .
this could be used to tune @xmath110 on and off by changing the distance between the dots .
next , we consider the case of very elliptic dots , with the bare oscillator frequencies @xmath311 corresponding to the @xmath68 and @xmath212 directions , respectively , such that @xmath312 .
the spin - spin coupling becomes in this limiting case @xmath313 where both perpendicular ( @xmath196 ) and in - plane magnetic fields are contained .
we see that the problem becomes effectively 1d with an ising - type spin - spin coupling , similar to the case of small coulomb coupling studied in the previous section .
we mention that for finite ratio of the two bare frequencies , @xmath314 , the interaction can be varied by changing this ratio , the angle of cancellation defined in eq .
( @xmath315 ) varying as well .
the behavior displayed in fig .
5 can be understood as follows .
the spin - spin coupling is directly related to the deformation of the charge distributions in the two dots as a consequence of the strong coulomb interaction ( @xmath316 ) .
thus , the stronger the deformation is , the stronger the spin - spin coupling becomes . or ,
in our case , the stronger the deviation of the renormalized orbital frequencies @xmath304 from the bare one @xmath22 is , the stronger the coupling becomes , see eqs .
( @xmath317 ) and ( @xmath318 ) . while the @xmath68 component of the spin - spin coupling is bounded because the inverse of @xmath319 tends to zero as the coulomb interaction strength @xmath112 increases , the @xmath212 component of this coupling is unbounded since the inverse of @xmath320 can grow indefinitely .
consequently , the @xmath212 component will dominate the @xmath68 component for large coulomb strength and small inter - dot distance @xmath1 .
however , the situation is reversed in the large distance limit , since @xmath319 increases faster than @xmath320 decreases as seen from eq .
( @xmath321 ) .
these opposite limits lead to the non - monotonic behavior depicted in fig .
5a ( perpendicular magnetic field ) .
we mention that the large distance limit of eq .
( @xmath322 ) converges to the large distance result obtained in the previous section , eq .
( @xmath191 ) .
however , it does not converge to the results of the previous section in the case of small distance [ eq .  ( @xmath203 ) ] , when going from @xmath316 to @xmath120 , a crossover description ( @xmath323 ) being needed in this situation .
phrased differently , tuning the spin - spin coupling @xmath110 from strong ( @xmath316 ) to small ( @xmath120 ) coulomb interaction regime by varying the inter - dot distance reproduces the corresponding @xmath120 result in eq .
( @xmath191 ) , while by varying the ratio @xmath118 does not reproduce the corresponding @xmath324 limit , @xmath136 eq .
( @xmath203 ) .
let us give now some estimates for the coupling @xmath110 when an in - plane magnetic field is applied along , say , the @xmath68-direction .
assuming now gaas quantum dots , and @xmath325 ( @xmath326 ) , @xmath327 ( @xmath328 ) , @xmath329 . using these numbers and taking for the geometric inter - dot distance @xmath207 , we obtain @xmath330 .
it is worth mentioning that the hyperfine interaction between the electron and the collection of nuclei in a quantum dot ( @xmath331 ) leads to similar energy scales@xcite .
this shows that the spin - spin coupling derived here can be very relevant for the spin dynamics in the case of electrostatically coupled quantum dots and that it can also compete with other types of interactions .
considering now the case of inas quantum dots in a magnetic field along the @xmath68 direction , with @xmath332 and @xmath333 and taking also @xmath207 , a value of @xmath334 it is obtained .
however , this is just a rough estimate since the spin - orbit coupling can not be treated as a perturbation anymore and our approximation , being pushed to the limit of its range of validity , starts to break down .
in this section we propose a measurement scheme for the spin - spin interaction @xmath335 .
similar to the spin relaxation experiments in ref .
, the left dot is monitored by a sensitive charge detector , such as a quantum point contact ( qpc ) or a single electron transistor ( set ) .
we show the main steps of the scheme in fig .
[ schemefigure ] .
the first step is the initialization step shown in fig .
[ schemefigure](a ) . at low temperatures , @xmath336
, a single - electron dot will relax to the ground state after a time larger than the spin relaxation time @xmath337 .
a faster spin relaxation can be induced by cotunneling with the lead , for which the dot can be placed closer to the fermi surface for some time . in fig .
[ schemefigure](a ) , the left dot is initialized in the lower zeeman sublevel @xmath338 , whereas the right dot is empty .
next , the right - dot energy is lowered below the fermi energy and the dot is quickly filled with an electron in either upper or lower zeeman sublevel .
this is a sequential tunneling process and we denote its rate by @xmath339 . in fig .
[ schemefigure](b ) , both dots are deep below the fermi surface and @xmath335 is the energy scale that governs a coherent evolution in the subspace @xmath340 .
the two spin density matrix reads @xmath341 where @xmath342 is the wave function that describes the occurrence of the state @xmath343 in the initialization step . in the ideal case
, @xmath342 evolves coherently due to the spin - spin interaction , eq .
( [ 13 ] ) @xmath344 here , we neglect the cotunneling and other spin relaxation processes . in particular
, the cotunneling rate @xmath345 should be much smaller than the spin - spin coupling @xmath335 . here , @xmath346 is the addition / extraction energy of the single - electron quantum dot in the coulomb blockade valley . on the other hand
the sequential tunneling rate @xmath339 should be large enough , so that the spins have no time to evolve during the initialization and measurement steps .
we summarize the required regime by the inequality @xmath347 after a waiting time @xmath348 , the probability of the left - dot electron to be in the upper zeeman sublevel reads , @xmath349.\ ] ] form the period of this function ( @xmath350 ) one can extract the value of the coupling constant @xmath335 .
the measurement of the probability @xmath351 can be performed in the same fashion as in ref .  .
after the waiting time @xmath348 , the left dot is brought up to the fermi level and placed such that the electron can tunnel into the lead only from the upper zeeman sublevel .
this configuration is shown in fig .
[ schemefigure](c ) .
tunneling of the electron out and refilling the quantum dot with an electron of the opposite spin is monitored by the charge detector close to the left dot ( not shown ) . for each value of the waiting time @xmath348 ,
the cycle of initialization , coherent evolution , and measurement has to be repeated many times in order to reach a good accuracy .
next , we remark that the hyperfine interaction with the lattice nuclei should not impede the measurement of @xmath335 as long as @xmath352 , where @xmath245 is the atomic hyperfine coupling constant and @xmath353 is the number of nuclei in both quantum dots .
note that the ratio of @xmath335 to @xmath354 for a constant @xmath355 scales with the dot lateral size as @xmath356 , for strong coulomb interaction , and as @xmath357 , for weak coulomb interaction .
therefore , the regime @xmath358 can be easily achieved by taking a larger quantum dot .
furthermore , the hyperfine interaction with the nuclei has only the effect of reducing the visibility of oscillations of @xmath359 , and even for @xmath360 a small part of @xmath351 shows oscillatory behavior with unchanged period , @xmath350 .    in fig .
[ schemefigurenucl ] , we plot the probability @xmath351 averaged over the realizations of the hyperfine field .
we choose @xmath361 to show that the measurement scheme is robust against the hyperfine field .
the oscillations are well visible even when @xmath354 is several times larger than @xmath362 .
the averaged probability @xmath363 is obtained in the following way . for the subspace @xmath340 and in the limit @xmath364 , the coupling of spins to the hyperfine field is given by @xmath365 , where the hyperfine field @xmath366 has a gaussian distribution with zero average and a variance @xmath367 , which we take to be a measurable parameter that defines @xmath353.@xcite for more detail on the derivation of @xmath368 we refer the reader to ref .  .
for our description to be accurate , the time between subsequent cycles of initialization , coherent evolution , and measurement should be larger than the nuclear spin relaxation time .
considering the sum of @xmath368 and @xmath369 in eq .
( [ 13 ] ) , we find that the probability @xmath351 for a fixed value of @xmath366 is given by@xcite @xmath370 the averaged probability @xmath363 is then computed by integrating eq .
( [ pldwndhz ] ) over @xmath366 with the gaussian weight factor @xmath371 , where @xmath367 .
considering @xmath372 and @xmath373 , we find that the visibility of oscillations scales with @xmath374 and @xmath348 as follows @xmath375 note that the scaling law @xmath376 is weaker than what one might expect navely from eq .
( [ pldwndhz ] ) , after substituting there @xmath366 by its typical value @xmath354 , which gives @xmath377 .
the reason for the weaker scaling law is the fact that @xmath366 is centered around zero and the denominator in eq .
( [ pldwndhz ] ) has nearly no effect .
we find that the numerical results in fig .
[ schemefigurenucl ] can be reproduced fairly accurately , if we approximate the argument of the cosine in eq .
( [ pldwndhz ] ) as follows @xmath378 this approximation is justified in the regime @xmath379 by the the minimal phase requirement , despite the fact that @xmath380 may be large . with eq .
( [ sqrtexpantion ] ) , it is easy to average @xmath351 and obtain an approximate expression , which is fairly accurate for @xmath381 and asymptotically exact in the limit @xmath379 .
we thus obtain @xmath382,\label{plppm1}\\ & & \bar{p}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\zeta \exp\left(\frac{\zeta^2}{2}\right){\rm erfc } \left(\frac{\zeta}{\sqrt{2}}\right),\label{plppm2}\\ & & \delta p(\tau)=\frac{\zeta\cos\left[2\pi\tau/\tau_0 + \varphi_0(\tau)\right]}{\left[\zeta^4+(2\pi\tau/\tau_0)^2\right]^{1/4 } } , \label{plppm3 } \;\;\;\;\\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath383 , @xmath384 is the complementary error function , and the running phase shift @xmath385 is given by @xmath386 we note that eq .
( [ plppm1 ] ) is exact in two limiting cases : @xmath387 and @xmath379 . in particular , in the limit @xmath388
, we recover @xmath351 in eq .
( [ pldwndhz ] ) for all values of @xmath348 . in the opposite limit , @xmath389 , eqs .
( [ plppm1])@xmath390([varpho0pl ] ) can be significantly simplified , yielding @xmath391.\ ] ]
in the entire derivation we assumed no tunneling between the dots . even in the presence of tunneling , when direct coulomb repulsion , @xmath392 ( which is just the classical interaction between two charge distributions ) is larger than the exchange interaction , @xmath393 ( @xmath394 ) , the theory presented here
is expected to remain still valid .
the reason is that this type of spin - spin coupling is a direct consequence of the deformation of the electronic charge distribution due to coulomb repulsion between the two electrons .
since this is given by the sum of the direct coulomb part @xmath392 , and the exchange part @xmath395 , the spin coupling @xmath110 will be insensitive to exchange in the limit @xmath396 .
the point now is that with finite tunneling , even with the assumption that the coupling strength @xmath110 is not modified by the exchange coulomb interaction , the resulting heisenberg exchange coupling @xmath395 ( @xmath397 ) will start to compete with the electrostatically induced spin interaction . as a consequence
, the spin coupling @xmath110 will be washed out in the limit @xmath398 . however , since the heisenberg exchange coupling decays with the inter - dot distance like@xcite @xmath399 while @xmath400 , the electrostatic spin coupling will start to dominate at not very large distances .
we recall that when having exchange , another type of spin coupling , @xmath401 , induced by spin - orbit interaction comes into play , and which is proportional to the heisenberg coupling @xmath395 , i.e. @xmath402 for typical gaas dots @xcite .
thus , @xmath401 can be much larger than @xmath335 for large enough heisenberg coupling , with a crossover from this exchange - type to the direct coulomb - type coupling taking place at some inter - dot distance .
this crossover , however , occurs before we get @xmath403 , since @xmath401 is typically 100 times smaller than @xmath395 . to give an estimate
, we assume @xmath404 for @xmath405 , which gives @xmath406 for @xmath407 , implying that @xmath408 .
another important issue is the effect of screening induced by the surrounding electrons in the 2deg and the metallic gates . as is well - known
, the screening effect between two charges becomes important for distances exceeding the screening length @xmath409 ( fermi liquids ) .
however , the screening of bare coulomb interaction depends strongly on the dimensionality . in 3d
the effect of screening is to induce an exponential decay of the bare coulomb interaction @xcite , with the decay parameter @xmath410 , while in 2d the decay follows a power law ( @xmath411 in the large distance limit ) @xcite , with @xmath410 being the relevant length scale . for gaas ,
the screening length is around @xmath412 .
moreover , additional screening is introduced by the electrodes to gate the dots , due to their metallic character .
the finite screening implies then that our theory in fact overestimates the strength of the electrostatically induced spin coupling @xmath110 for distances exceeding this screening length and the results obtained here become just an upper bound on @xmath110 for this limit .
being highly controllable , the coupling @xmath110 could be used to perform two qubit gates for the realization of quantum computers with electron spins , like proposed in ref . .
the switching times range between rather slow ( @xmath413 in gaas ) and reasonably fast ( @xmath414 in inas ) .
when making use of the standard exchange coupling@xcite for switching ( with typical switching times of @xmath415 in gaas ) the electrostatically induced spin - coupling found here can lead to gate errors .
however , this effect can be controlled by choosing the magnetic field direction or strength and/or the interdot distance such that @xmath110 becomes negligibly small ( see eq .
( @xmath416 ) ) .    finally , an important question is how orbital fluctuations ( for example of the confining energy @xmath114 ) mediated via spin - orbit coupling lead to fluctuations in the coupling @xmath110 and thus eventually to spin decoherence .
the relation between the orbital dephasing time ( which is assumed to be known ) and the decoherence induced by the spin coupling @xmath110 reads @xcite @xmath417 where @xmath418 is the orbital dephasing time and @xmath419 the corresponding spin decoherence time .
we also assumed only fluctuations in the dot size , which means fluctuations of the confinement frequency @xmath22 . assuming an orbital dephasing time @xmath420 and also the limiting case of touching dots with the same gaas parameters as before we obtain a spin decoherence time ( lower bound ) @xmath421 .
we can conclude then that the incoherent part due to this type of coupling is negligible compared with other types of decoherence mechanisms , @xmath8 induced by the hyperfine interaction@xcite .    to conclude
, we have derived an effective spin - spin interaction between two electrons localized in two quantum dots , spatially separated , induced by the direct coulomb interaction and mediated by the spin - orbit coupling .
this interaction was found to have the form of an anisotropic @xmath0 interaction and to be proportional to the zeeman energy .
the spin - spin coupling was studied both in the weak and strong coulomb interaction limits and for different magnetic field orientations and strengths .
the important features are the non - monotonic behavior of this spin interaction for some magnetic field orientations , together with a vanishing of this interaction for particular inter - dot distances .
this effect can be used to manipulate the spin - spin interaction in electrostatically coupled quantum dots by tuning the inter - dot distance .
we proposed a measurement setup which allows one to access this spin - spin coupling experimentally .
we thank d. stepanenko , g. burkard , w. a. coish , and d. klauser for useful discussions .
we acknowledge financial support from the swiss nsf , the nccr nanoscience , darpa , onr , and jst icorp .
in this appendix we give explicit formulas for the couplings @xmath93 for an arbitrary magnetic field orientation @xmath423 and for both rashba and dresselhaus spin - orbit couplings present .
these are obtained by diagonalizing the tensor @xmath90 , which leads to      with @xmath425 ( the angle @xmath70 is defined after eq .
( @xmath59 ) ) .
the functions @xmath426 ( @xmath427 ) can be expressed in terms of @xmath94|0\rangle$ ] , @xmath95 , @xmath136 @xmath428 @xmath429 @xmath430 these functions can be identified very easily from our formulas derived in the paper .
for example , for the case considered in eq .
( @xmath186 ) ( weak coulomb coupling regime ) we get @xmath431    , d.d .
awschalom , d. loss , and n. samarth ( eds . ) , ( springer , berlin , 2002 ) .
v. cerletti , w. a. coish , o. gywat , and d. loss , nanotechnology * 16 * , r27 ( 2005 ) . j. m. kikkawa and d. d. awschalom , phys . rev . lett .
* 80 * , 4313 ( 1998 ) .
d. loss and d. p. divincenzo , phys .
a * 57 * , 120 ( 1998 ) .
a. imamoglu , d.d .
awschalom , g. burkard , d. p. divincenzo , d. loss , m. sherwin , and a. small , phys .
lett . * 83 * , 4204 ( 1999 ) .
m.  ciorga , a. s. sachrajda , p. hawrylak , c. gould , p. zawadzki , s. jullian , y. feng , and z. wasilewski , phys .
b * 61 * , r16315 ( 2000 ) .
k.  ono , d. g. austing , y. tokura , and s. tarucha , _ science _ * 297 * , 1313 ( 2002 ) .
j. m.  elzerman , r. hanson , l. h. willems van beveren , b. witkamp , l. m. k. vandersypen , and l. p. kouwenhoven , _ nature _ * 430 * , 431 ( 2004 ) . m.  kroutvar , y. ducommun , d. heiss , m. bichler , d. schuh , g. abstreiter , and j. j. finley , _ nature _ * 432 * , 81 ( 2004 ) .
j. r. petta , a. c. johnson , j. m. taylor , e. a. laird , a. yacoby , m. d. lukin , c. m. marcus , m. p. hanson , a. c. gossard , _ science _ * 309 * , 2180 ( 2005 ) . c. w. lai , p. maletinsky , a. badolato , and a. imamoglu , phys .
lett . * 96 * , 167403 ( 2006 ) .
f. h. l. koppens , c. buizert , k. j. tielrooij , i. t. vink , k. c. nowack , t. meunier , l. p. kouwenhoven , and l. m. k. vandersypen , _ nature _ * 442 * , 766 ( 2006 ) . s. amasha , k. maclean , i. radu , d. m. zumbuhl , m. a. kastner , m. p. hanson , and a. c. gossard , cond - mat/0607110 .
melnikov and e.i .
rashba , sov .
jetp * 34 * , 1353 ( 1972 ) .
m.  dobrowolska , a. witowski , j. k. furdyna , t. ichiguchi , h. d. drew , and p. a. wolff , phys .
b * 29 * , 6652 ( 1984 ) .
g. salis , y. kato , k. ensslin , d. c. driscoll , a. c. gossard , and d. d. awschalom , _ nature _ * 414 * , 619 ( 2001 ) .
rashba and al.l .
efros , appl .
lett . , * 83 * , 5295 ( 2003 ) .
m. duckheim and d. loss , _ nature physics _ , * 3 * , 195 ( 2006 ) .
v. n. golovach , m. borhani , and d. loss , cond - mat/0601674 .
a. v. khaetskii and yu .
v. nazarov , phys . rev .
b * 64 * , 125316 ( 2001 ) . v. n. golovach , a. khaetskii , and d. loss , phys . rev .
* 93 * , 016601 ( 2004 ) . m. borhani , v. n. golovach , and d. loss , phys .
b 73 , 155311 ( 2006 ) .
a.  abragam , _ principles of nuclear magnetism _ ( oxford university press , 1961 ) .
n. zhao , l. zhong , j .- l .
zhu , and c. p. sun , cond - mat/0603363 . c. flindt , a. s. sorensen , and k. flensberg , cond - mat/0603559 . to distinguish between the two mechanisms we refer to the coupling studied in this work as spin - spin coupling as opposed to the heisenberg exchange coupling .
g. burkard , d. loss , and d. p. divincenzo , phys .
b * 59 * , 2070 ( 1999 ) .
x. hu and s. das sarma , phys .
a * 61 * , 062301 ( 2000 ) .
j. schliemann , d. loss , and a. h. macdonald , phys .
b * 63 * , 085311 ( 2001 ) .
k. k. kavokin , phys .
b * 64 * , 075305 ( 2001 )
. n. e. bonesteel , d. stepanenko , and d. p. divincenzo , phys .
* 87 * , 207901 ( 2001 ) .
g. burkard and d. loss , phys .
lett . * 88 * , 047903 ( 2002 ) .
d. stepanenko , n. e. bonesteel , d. p. divincenzo , g. burkard , and d. loss , phys .
b * 68 * , 115306 ( 2003 ) .
d. stepanenko and n. e. bonesteel , phys .
lett . * 93 * , 140501 ( 2004 ) .
g. dresselhaus , phys . rev . * 100 * , 580 ( 1955 ) .
y. bychkov and e. i. rashba , j. phys .
c * 17 * , 6039 ( 1984 ) .
n. f. johnson and m. c. payne , phys .
67 * , 1157 ( 1991 ) .
v. fock , z. phys .
* 47 * , 446 ( 1928 ) .
darwin , math .
cambridge philos .
* 27 * , 86 ( 1930 ) .
d. bulaev and d. loss , phys .
b * 71 * , 205324 ( 2005 ) .
o. dippel , p. schmelcher , and l. s. cederbaum , phys .
a * 49 * , 4415 ( 1994 ) .
j. schliemann , j. c. egues , and d. loss , phys .
lett . * 90 * , 146801 ( 2003 ) .
a. khaetskii , d. loss , and l. glazman , phys .
lett . * 88 * , 186802 ( 2002 ) .
w. a. coish and d. loss , phys .
b * 70 * , 195340 ( 2004 ) .
more rigorously , @xmath432 , where @xmath433 is the variance of the @xmath27-component of a single nuclear spin ( assuming @xmath434 ) and @xmath435 , with @xmath436 being the electron wave function and @xmath437 the unit cell volume per nuclear spin .
d. pines and p. nozieres _ the theory of quantum liquids , vol . 1 _
( benjamin , new york , 1966 ) . f. stern , phys .
rev . lett . * 18 * , 546 ( 1967 ) .
t. ando , a. b. fowler , and f. stern , rev .
phys . * 54 * , 437 ( 1982 ) . c. w. j. beenakker and h. van houten , in solid state physics : advances in research and applications , edited by h. ehrenreich and d. turnbull ( academic , new york , 1991 ) , vol .
44 , pp . 1 - 228 .
d. saraga and d. loss , phys .
rev b * 72 * , 195319 ( 2005 ) .
w.a . coish and d. loss , phys .
b * 72 * , 125337 ( 2005 ) .


the standard model ( sm ) has passed the tests provided by run 1 of the lhc with flying colours .
many cross sections for particle and jet production have been measured at the lhc  @xcite , and are in agreement with the sm predictions , as seen in fig .  [
fig : sections ] .
jet production cross sections agree over large ranges in energy and many orders of magnitude with qcd calculations within the sm , as do measurements of single and multiple @xmath0 and @xmath1 production and measurements of single and pair production of the top quark .
the biggest headline of lhc run 1 was of course the discovery by cms and atlas of a ( the ? ) higgs boson  @xcite , which has now been detected in three production channels , as also seen in fig .
[ fig : sections ] , also in agreement with the sm predictions .
much of this talk will concern what we already know about this newly - discovered particle , and the hints it may provide for other new physics , as well as other topics within and beyond the standard model .
qcd is the basis for lhc physics : it provides many tests of the standard model as well as dominating particle production and deluging us with with backgrounds and pile - up events . the agreement between qcd predictions and measurements of large-@xmath2 jet production at the lhc over many orders of magnitude yields measurements of the strong coupling that are consistent with the world average value @xmath3 , and demonstrate that @xmath4 continues to run downward beyond the tev scale  @xcite , perhaps towards grand unification , as seen in fig .
[ fig : run ] .     continues to run downward at energies beyond @xmath5  tev  @xcite.__,height=192 ]    not only are perturbative qcd calculations doing a fantastic job overall of predicting the production cross sections for jets and massive vector bosons , but also for the higgs boson .
accurate higher - order qcd calculations are at a premium for the dominant gluon - fusion contribution to the higgs production cross section .
several different nnlo calculations are available , and are included in various publicly - available tools  @xcite .
unfortunately , the agreement between them is not yet perfect .
fortunately , progress is being made on nnnlo calculations  @xcite .
these will improve the theoretical accuracy , but progress in convergence between the parton distribution functions will also be needed in order to reduce the theoretical uncertainties below the experimental measurement uncertainties .
another pillar of the sm is the cabibbo - kobayashi - maskawa ( ckm ) model of flavour mixing and cp violation .
it is in general very successful , as seen in fig .
[ fig : hs ]  @xcite .
for example , the second - greatest discovery during run  1 of the lhc was perhaps the measurement by the cms and lhcb collaborations of the rare decay @xmath6 , with a branching ratio in good agreement with the sm prediction  @xcite : @xmath7 as seen in fig .
[ fig : bmumu ] .
however , the joint cms and lhcb analysis  @xcite also has an suggestion of a @xmath8 signal that is larger than the sm prediction : @xmath9 as also seen in fig .
[ fig : bmumu ] .
if confirmed , this measurement would conflict not just with the sm , but also models with minimal flavour violation ( mfv ) , including many supersymmetric scenarios . something to watch during run  2 !
decays , including * b * a clear signal for @xmath6 decay that agrees with the sm , and * c * a hint of @xmath8 decay , possibly at a rate larger than expected in the sm  @xcite.__,height=124 ]    there is scope elsewhere for deviations from ckm predictions : for example , the data allow an important contribution to @xmath10 meson mixing from physics beyond the sm ( bsm )  @xcite .
also , there are issues with @xmath11 universality in semileptonic @xmath12 decays  @xcite and a persistent anomaly in the @xmath13 angular distribution for @xmath14  @xcite .
could this be related to the intriguing excess in @xmath15 decay reported by the cms collaboration  @xcite , which is discussed later ? other points to watch include discrepancies in the determinations of the @xmath16 ckm matrix element and the tevatron diimuon asymmetry anomaly  @xcite .
however , some anomalies do seem to be going away , such as the branching ratio for @xmath17 decay , which is now in good agreement with the sm  @xcite and the forward - backward asymmetry in @xmath18 production  @xcite , which is consistent with the latest higher - order qcd calculations  @xcite , as is the @xmath18 rapidity asymmetry measured at the lhc
. however , there are still plenty of flavour physics issues to be addressed during lhc run  2 .
the higgs boson may be regarded as , on the one hand , the capstone of the glorious arch of the sm or , on the other hand , as the portal giving access to new physics . in this section
we discuss first the extent to which the new particle discovered on july 4th , 2012 fulfils its sm rle , and then what hints it may be able to provide about possible bsm physics .
the mass of the higgs boson is measured most accurately in the @xmath19 and @xmath20 final states , and atlas and cms have both reported accurate measurements in each of these final states as shown in fig .
[ fig : mh ] . atlas measures  @xcite @xmath21 and cms measures  @xcite @xmath22 combining all these measurements , the atlas and cms collaborations find  @xcite @xmath23 in addition to being a fundamental measurement in its own right , and casting light on the possible validity of various bsm models ( for example , this value is perfectly consistent with supersymmetric predictions  @xcite ) , the precise value of @xmath24 is also important for the stability of the electroweak vacuum in the standard model  @xcite , as discussed later .     by atlas and cms in the @xmath19 and @xmath25 final states ,
as complied in  @xcite.__,height=192 ]      the fact that the higgs boson decays into @xmath19 excludes spin 1 , and spin 0 is expected , but spins 2 and higher are also possible in principle .
the higgs spin has been probed in many ways  @xcite , via its production and decay rates  @xcite , the kinematics of higgs production in association with the @xmath0 and @xmath1  @xcite , and decay angular distributions for @xmath26 , @xmath27 and @xmath19 final states  @xcite .
the results of tests using the kinematics of associated @xmath28 production at the tevatron are shown in fig .
[ fig : higgsspin ]  @xcite . by
now there is overwhelming evidence against the higgs boson having spin 2 .
moreover , as also seen in fig .
[ fig : higgsspin ]  @xcite , it has been established that its couplings to @xmath26 and @xmath27 are predominantly cp - even , i.e. , it couples mainly as a scalar , not as a pseudoscalar .
production at the tevatron  @xcite.__,height=192 ]      as seen in fig .
[ fig : strengths ] , the strengths of the higgs signals measured by atlas in individual channels  @xcite are generally compatible with the sm predictions ( as are cms measurements  @xcite ) within the statistical fluctuations , which are inevitably large at this stage . atlas and cms report the following overall signal strengths after combining their measurements in the @xmath19 , @xmath29 , @xmath30 , @xmath31 and @xmath32 channels : @xmath33 both averages are quite compatible with the sm and with each other , as is also true of the tevatron measurements  @xcite .    , normalised to unity for the sm , as measured by atlas  @xcite.__,height=220 ]    because of its connection to mass generation , the couplings of the higgs boson to other particles in the sm should be related to their masses : linearly for fermions , quadratically for bosons , and be scaled by the higgs vev @xmath34  gev .
these predictions are implicit in the measurements in fig .
[ fig : strengths ] , and are tested directly in fig .
[ fig : mass_dependence ] . the latter displays a global fit in which the higgs coupling data are parametrised as  @xcite @xmath35 as seen in the left panel of fig .  [ fig : mass_dependence ] ,
the data yield @xmath36 which is in excellent agreement with the sm predictions @xmath37 , @xmath38  gev .
similar results have also been found recently in an analysis by the cms collaboration  @xcite .
it seems that higgs couplings indeed have the expected characteristic dependence on particle masses .
couplings of the form ( [ epsilon ] ) ( central values as dashed and @xmath391@xmath40 values as dotted lines ) , which is very consistent with the linear mass dependence for fermions and quadratic mass dependence for bosons ( solid red line ) expected in the sm  @xcite.__,height=206 ]    according to the sm , flavour should be conserved to a very good approximation in higgs couplings to fermions .
this is consistent with the available upper limits on low - energy effective flavour - changing interactions , which would , however , also allow lepton - flavour - violating higgs couplings that are much larger than the sm predictions  @xcite . looking for such interactions is therefore a possible window on bsm physics .
on the basis of low - energy data , we estimated that the branching ratios for @xmath15 and @xmath41 decays could each be as large as @xmath42% , i.e. , as large as br@xmath43 , whereas the branching ratio for @xmath44 could only be much smaller , @xmath45  @xcite .
the cms collaboration has recently reported a measurement  @xcite @xmath46 which is @xmath47 different from zero .
sm flavour physics predictions are therefore being probed more stringently by the lhc than by low - energy experiments , and we are keen to see corresponding results from atlas and from run  2 of the lhc !
decay  @xcite.__,height=288 ]    although all the indications are that the dominant higgs couplings are cp - even , as seen , e.g. , in fig .
[ fig : higgsspin ] above , there may also be an admixture of cp - odd couplings , whose fraction may depend on the particle whose coupling to the higgs boson are being probed . since the leading cp - odd @xmath48 coupling to fermions would have the _ same
_ ( zero ) dimension as the leading cp - even coupling , whereas the leading cp - odd @xmath48 coupling to massive vector bosons would have _ higher _ dimension than the leading cp - even coupling , the latter may be more suppressed . ideas for probing cp violation in @xmath49 decay
have been suggested  @xcite , and cp violation may also be probed in the @xmath50 couplings  @xcite . as seen in fig .
[ fig : thcp ] , this could affect the total cross sections for associated @xmath50 , @xmath51 and @xmath52 production , shown as functions of @xmath53 arctan(cp - odd coupling / cp - even coupling ) . if @xmath54 , a cp - violating transverse polarization asymmetry is in principle observable in @xmath51 and @xmath52 production , as discussed in  @xcite .
, @xmath51 and @xmath52 production cross sections , taking into account the current constraints from the @xmath55 and @xmath56 couplings  @xcite.__,height=240 ]      one of the key questions about the higgs boson is whether it is elementary or composite .
one might have thought that a composite higgs boson would naturally have a mass comparable to the scale of compositeness , but the mass can be suppressed if it is a pseudo - nambu - goldstone boson with a mass that is protected by some approximate symmetry , perhaps becoming consistent with the measured higgs mass @xmath57  gev .
this possibility may be probed using a phenomenological lagrangian @xmath58 with free @xmath48 couplings , that may be constrained using @xmath48 decay and production data .
since the standard model relation @xmath59 agrees well with the data , one usually assumes that the phenomenological lagrangian has a custodial symmetry : su(2)@xmath60su(2 ) @xmath61 su(2 ) .
then one may parametrise the leading - order terms in @xmath58 as follows : @xmath62 where @xmath63 the free coefficients @xmath64 and
@xmath65 are all normalised so that they are unity in the sm , and one searches for observable deviations from these values that could be signatures of composite models .
[ fig : ey ] shows one such analysis  @xcite , that looked for possible rescalings of the @xmath48 couplings to bosons by a factor @xmath66 and to fermions by a factor @xmath67   and @xmath68  @xcite , which are used by atlas and cms . ] . fig .
[ fig : ey ] shows no sign of any deviation from the sm predictions @xmath69 .
the yellow lines in fig .
[ fig : ey ] show the predictions of specific composite models that are excluded unless ( in some cases ) their predictions are adjusted to resemble those of the sm .
couplings rescaled by factors @xmath66 and @xmath67 , respectively .
the sm prediction @xmath69 is shown as the green star  @xcite , and the yellow lines show the possible predictions of some composite models.__,height=220 ]    since the properties of the higgs boson as well as other particles continue to agree with the sm , it is increasingly popular approach to to regard the sm as an effective field theory ( eft ) valid at low energies @xmath70  tev . the effects of bsm physics at higher scales may then be parametrised via higher - dimensional eft operators constructed out of sm fields , as a first approximation , with coefficients that can be constrained by precision electroweak data , higgs data and triple - gauge couplings ( tgcs ) .
@xcite discusses the operators entering electroweak precision tests ( ewpts ) at lep , together with @xmath71 cl bounds on their individual coefficients when they are switched on one at a time , and also when marginalised in a simultaneous global fit .
results for the eft coefficients @xmath72 and @xmath73 , which affect the leptonic observables @xmath74 , and the eft coefficients @xmath75 and @xmath76 , which contribute to the hadronic observables @xmath77 , are shown in fig .
[ fig : ewptsummary ] .
the upper ( green ) bars show the ranges for each of eft coefficient when it is varied individually , assuming that the other eft coefficients vanish , and the lower ( red ) bars show the ranges for a global fit in which all the eft coefficients are allowed to vary simultaneously , neglecting any possible correlations .
the ranges of the coefficients are translated in the legend at the top of the left panel of fig .
[ fig : ewptsummary ] into ranges of a large mass scale @xmath78 .
all the sensitivities are in the multi - tev range .     for @xmath79 .
@xcite _ ]    other operators contribute to higgs physics and tgcs , and important information on possible values of their coefficients is provided by kinematic distributions  @xcite , as well as by total rates , as illustrated in fig .
[ fig : distributions ] .
distribution in @xmath80 events at the lhc showing the sm expectation ( purple shading with solid outline ) , and the distributions with @xmath81 = 0.1 and 0.05 , respectively as red - dotted and blue - dashed lines  @xcite .
lower panel : the same - flavour @xmath2 distribution of the leading lepton in a tgc analysis .
the standard model distribution is shaded blue with solid lines , and the distribution for @xmath82 is shaded green with dashed lines . in both cases
the last ( overflow ) bin provides important extra information in addition to the overall normalisation  @xcite.__,title="fig : " ] +   distribution in @xmath80 events at the lhc showing the sm expectation ( purple shading with solid outline ) , and the distributions with @xmath81 = 0.1 and 0.05 , respectively as red - dotted and blue - dashed lines  @xcite .
lower panel : the same - flavour @xmath2 distribution of the leading lepton in a tgc analysis .
the standard model distribution is shaded blue with solid lines , and the distribution for @xmath82 is shaded green with dashed lines . in both cases
the last ( overflow ) bin provides important extra information in addition to the overall normalisation  @xcite.__,title="fig : " ]    fig .  [ fig : fitsummary ]  @xcite shows a global fit to the higgs data , including associated production kinematics , and lhc tgc measurements .
the individual 95% cl constraints with one non - zero eft coefficient at a time are shown as green bars .
the other lines show marginalised 95% ranges fund using the higgs signal - strength data in conjunction with the kinematic distributions for associated @xmath83 production measured by atlas and d0 ( blue bars ) , with the lhc tgc data ( red lines ) , and with both ( black bars ) .
the lhc tgc constraints are the most important for @xmath84 and @xmath85 , whereas the higgs constraints are more important for @xmath86 , @xmath87 and @xmath88 .    in my view
, the eft approach is the most promising framework for analysing run  2 results , in particular because it can be used to tie together many different classes of measurements .
production measured by atlas and d0 ( blue bars ) , with the lhc tgc data ( red lines ) , and the global combination with both the associated production and tgc data ( black bars ) .
note that @xmath89 are shown @xmath90 , for which the upper axis should be read @xmath91  @xcite . _ _ ]
_  the more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered " _ said albert michelson in 1894 , just before radioactivity and the electron were discovered .
_  there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now , all that remains is more and more precise measurement " _ said lord kelvin in 1900 , just before einstein s _ annus mirabilis _ in 1905 .
similarly , today there are many reasons to expect physics beyond the sm even ( particularly after the discovery of a ( the ? ) higgs boson , as i now discuss .
as james bond might have said  @xcite , there are 007 important reasons .
1 ) the measured values of @xmath92 and @xmath24 indicate that the electroweak vacuum is _ probably _ unstable , in the absence of some bsm physics .
2 ) the dark matter required by astrophysics and cosmology has no possible origin within the sm .
3 ) the origin of the matter in the universe requires additional cp violation beyond ckm .
4 ) the small neutrino masses seem to require bsm physics .
5 ) the hierarchy of mass scales could appear more natural in the presence of some new physics at the tev scale .
6 ) cosmological inflation requires bsm physics , since the effective higgs potential in the sm would seem to become negative at high scales .
7 ) quantising gravity would certainly require physics ( far ) beyond the sm .    the first two of these issues are discussed in the following .
in the sm with its su(2)@xmath60u(1 ) symmetry , the origin where @xmath93 is unstable and surrounded by a valley where @xmath94  gev , the present electroweak vacuum . at larger
higgs field values , the effective potential rises , at least for a while .
however , calculations in the sm show that , for the measured values of @xmath92 and @xmath24 , the effective potential turns down as a result of renormalization of the higgs self - coupling by the top quark , which overwhelms that by the higgs itself .
thus , the present electroweak vacuum is in principle unstable in the sm , and quantum tunnelling generates collapse into an anti - de - sitter big
crunch.    the sm calculations  @xcite shown in the upper panel of fig .
[ fig : buttazzo ] indicate that the instability sets in at a higgs scale @xmath78 : @xmath95 uisng the world average values of @xmath92 , @xmath24 and @xmath96 , this formula yields @xmath97 however , we see in the lower panel of fig .  [
fig : buttazzo ] that this calculation is very sensitive to @xmath92 .
note in this connection that the d0 collaboration has recently reported a new , higher , value of @xmath92  @xcite ( tending to make the vacuum more unstable ) , whereas the cms collaboration has reported lower values of @xmath92 from new analyses  @xcite ( tending to make the vacuum more stable ) .
a more accurate experimental measurement of @xmath92 would help us understand the fate of the universe within the sm , and the possible need for bsm physics to stabilise the electroweak vacuum , but we also need to understand better the relationship between the parameter @xmath92 in the sm lagrangian and the effective mass parameter measured by experiments  @xcite .     at large scales , destabilising the electroweak vacuum .
right panel : regions of vacuum stability , metastability and instability in the @xmath98 plane .
both panels are from  @xcite.__,title="fig:",height=192 ] +   at large scales , destabilising the electroweak vacuum .
right panel : regions of vacuum stability , metastability and instability in the @xmath98 plane .
both panels are from  @xcite.__,title="fig:",height=153 ]    even if the lifetime of the electroweak vacuum is much longer than the age of the universe , as suggested by these calculations , one can not simply ignore this problem .
the early universe is thought to have had a very high energy density , e.g. , during an inflationary epoch  @xcite , at which time quantum and thermal fluctuations at that time would have populated the anti - de - sitter ` big crunch ' region  @xcite .
however , it is possible that we might have been lucky enough to live in a non - anti - de - sitter region and thereby surviving  @xcite .
the problem could be avoided with suitable new physics beyond the sm , of which one example is supersymmetry  @xcite .
one may love supersymmetry ( susy ) for many reasons , such as rendering the hierarchy problem more natural , providing a candidate for the cold dark matter , aiding grand unification and its essential ( ? ) rle in string theory . in my mind , run  1 of the lhc has added three more reasons , namely the mass of the higgs boson , which was predicted successfully by supersymmetry  @xcite , the fact that the higgs couplings are similar to those of the sm higgs boson , as discussed earlier and as expected in simple realisations of the mssm  @xcite , and the stabilisation of the electroweak vacuum , as mentioned just above .
how can we resist susy s manifold charms ?
however , so far susy has kept coyly out of sight in searches at the lhc , direct searches for the scattering of dark matter particles , indirect searches in flavour physics , etc .. where could susy be hiding ? we know that susy must be a broken symmetry , but we do not know how , so we do not know what the susy spectrum may be .
it is often assumed that there is a discrete r - symmetry , which would guarantee the stability of the lightest supersymmetric particle ( lsp ) , providing the above - mentioned dark matter candidate .
it is often assumed that the susy - breaking sparticle masses are universal at some high renormalisation scale , usually the gut scale , but this has no strong theoretical justification .
the simplest model is one in which all the susy - breaking contributions @xmath99 to the squark , slepton and higgs masses are equal at the gut scale , and the su(3 ) , su(2 ) and u(1 ) gauging masses @xmath100 are also universal , which is called the constrained mssm ( cmssm ) .
it could also be that the susy - breaking contributions to the masses of the two higgs doublets of the mssm differ from those of the squarks and leptons , and may be equal to each other ( the nuhm1 ) , or different from each other ( the nuhm2 ) .
alternatively , one may consider the phenomenological mssm ( pmssm ) in which no gut - scale universality is assumed .
some results of global fits to the cmssm , nuhm1 , nuhm2 and a version of the pmssm with 10 free susy - breaking parameters , combining all experimental and phenomenological constraints and requiring that the relic supersymmetric particle density be within the cosmological range , are shown in fig .
[ fig : mc11 ]  @xcite .
the upper panel shows the profile likelihood functions for the gluino mass in these models , and the lower panel shows the likelihood functions for the first - and second - generation squarks ( which are assumed to be equal in the pmssm10 ) . in the gut - universal models
the 95% cl lower limits on the squark and gluino masses are @xmath101  gev , whereas they could be significantly lighter in the pmssm10 , which offers greater prospects for discovering susy in lhc run  2  @xcite .
+    the pmssm revives the possibility of explaining the discrepancy between the sm calculation of @xmath102 and the experimental measurement within a susy model .
this is not possible in the cmssm , nuhm1 and nuhm2 , because of the lhc constraints , and these models predict values of the @xmath102 similar to the sm prediction , as shown by the blue lines in fig .
[ fig : g-2 ] .
however , the black line in this figure shows that the experimental measurement could be accommodated within the pmssm  @xcite .
there are plans for two new experiments to measure @xmath102  @xcite , and other low - energy @xmath103 experiments will help clarify the discrepancy between the sm and experiment .
if this is indeed due to susy , our pmssm10 analysis suggests that its discovery may not be far away ! in particular , there are prospects in searches for jets + missing transverse energy searches at the lhc , as well as dedicated searches for sleptons and light stop squarks  @xcite .
as already mentioned , a supersymmetric model that conserves r - parity has a natural candidate for a cold dark matter particle , and this is often taken to be the lightest neutralino @xmath104  @xcite ( though other candidates are also possible ) .
the present limits from direct searches for the scattering of massive cold dark matter particles in underground experiments are shown in the upper panel of fig .
[ fig : dmcomparison ] , together with predictions in the pmssm10  @xcite .
the 68% cl region in this model ( outlined by the red contour ) lies just below the current experimental limit and within range of the planned lz experiment ( magenta line )  @xcite .
other tev - scale extensions of the sm , such as some extra - dimensional models with k - parity and little higgs models with t - parity , also have possible candidates .
it is therefore useful to make a model - independent comparison of the capabilities of the lhc and direct dark matter searches , and one such is shown in the lower panel of fig .
[ fig : dmcomparison ] .
this compares direct astrophysical searches for the scattering of generic tev - scale dark matter particles with the current reaches of the lhc via monojet searches , for the cases of spin - dependent ( axial ) couplings ( left panel ) and spin - independent ( vector ) couplings ( right panel )  @xcite . in the former case
the lhc monojet searches generally have greater sensitivity than the direct searches , except for dark matter particle masses @xmath105  tev where the lhc runs out of phase space . on the other hand , direct searches for spin - independent interactions are more sensitive than the lhc searches for masses @xmath106  gev .
susy models generally favour a relatively large mass for the dark matter particle , the pmssm10 being one example , as seen in the upper panel of fig .
[ fig : dmcomparison ]
.     + -plane  @xcite , showing the regions excluded by the xenon100 and lux experiments ( shaded green ) , the neutrino ` floor ' ( shaded yellow ) , and the prospective sensitivity of the lz experiment  @xcite .
the preferred 68% cl region is outlined in red , and the region allowed at the 95% cl is outlined in blue .
the solid contours incorporate the lhc constraints , and the dashed contours omit them .
lower panels : a comparison of the current 90% cl direct search limits from lux and supercdms ( red and orange lines , respectively ) , the monojet limits in simple models ( blue lines ) and the limits in an effective field theory framework ( green line ) in the cross section vs @xmath107 plane used by the direct detection community . the left and right panels show , respectively , the limits on the spin - dependent and spin - independent cross sections appropriate for axial- vector and vector mediators  @xcite . _ ,
there is longstanding interest in building a high - energy @xmath103 collider , which might be linear such as the ilc ( @xmath108  tev ) or clic ( @xmath109  tev ) . on the other hand
, there is now interest in europe and china in a possible large circular tunnel to contain an @xmath103 collider with @xmath110  gev and/or a @xmath111 collider with @xmath112  tev  @xcite . a circular @xmath103 collider would provide measurements of the @xmath113 and higgs bosons of unparalleled accuracy , as seen in fig .  [
fig : tlep ]  @xcite .
these would be able to distinguish between the predictions of the sm and various fits in the cmssm , nuhm1 and nuhm2 , as shown , if one can also reduce correspondingly the present theoretical uncertainties , which are indicated in the right panel by the shaded green bars .
the other coloured bars illustrate the accuracies attainable with measurements at various accelerators
.     properties ( left panel ) and higgs couplings ( right panel ) , together with the prospective precisions of possible measurements at future colliders and the deviations from the sm predictions found at the best - fit points in various susy models .
the right panel also shows the current theoretical uncertainties . from  @xcite.__,height=192 ]    a future high - energy @xmath111 collider would produce many more higgs bosons than the lhc , as seen in the upper panel of fig .
[ fig : fcc - hh ]  @xcite , offering the possibility of measuring higgs couplings with greater statistical accuracy , and also including the elusive triple - higgs coupling .
a high - energy @xmath111 collider would also offer unique possibilities to discover and/or measure the properties of susy particles .
even the susy dark matter particle could weigh several tev , as seen in the lower panel of fig .
[ fig : fcc - hh ]  @xcite , which illustrates a strip in the cmssm parameter space where the relic neutralino density is brought into the the range allowed by cosmology through coannihilation with the lighter stop squark . in the example shown , the lightest neutralino weighs @xmath114  tev and only a @xmath111 collider with @xmath115  tev would be able to explore all the range of particle masses compatible with susy providing dark matter ( solid and upper dashed blue lines ) .
for all this range calculations of the higgs mass are compatible with the experimental value ( represented by the yellow band ) , considering the theoretical uncertainties represented by the solid and dashed green lines .
colliders as functions of the centre - of - mass energy  @xcite .
lower panel : one of the possibilities for a relatively heavy susy dark matter particle weighing @xmath116  tev .
the vertical axis is the mass difference between the dark matter particle and the next - to - lightest supersymmetric particle , in this case the lighter stop squark .
the solid and upper dashed blue lines correspond to the current central and + 1@xmath40 values of the dark matter density , the horizontal yellow band represents the experimental value of the higgs mass , and the green solid and dashed lines represent the central value and @xmath391@xmath40 uncertainties in theoretical calculations of the higgs mass  @xcite.__,title="fig:",width=245 ] +   colliders as functions of the centre - of - mass energy  @xcite .
lower panel : one of the possibilities for a relatively heavy susy dark matter particle weighing @xmath116  tev .
the vertical axis is the mass difference between the dark matter particle and the next - to - lightest supersymmetric particle , in this case the lighter stop squark .
the solid and upper dashed blue lines correspond to the current central and + 1@xmath40 values of the dark matter density , the horizontal yellow band represents the experimental value of the higgs mass , and the green solid and dashed lines represent the central value and @xmath391@xmath40 uncertainties in theoretical calculations of the higgs mass  @xcite.__,title="fig:",width=253 ]    the supersymmetric dark matter particle might be even heavier in more general supersymmetric models .
for example , if the lightest neutralino coannihilates with an almost degenerate gluino , it may weigh @xmath117  tev , as seen in fig .
[ fig : elo ] , which would be a challenge even for a 100-tev collider .
, as a function of @xmath118 .
the green band corresponds to the current @xmath119-@xmath40 range of the dark matter density : @xmath120 , and the brown and red contours are for @xmath121 and @xmath122 , respectively . from  @xcite.__,height=220 ]    the physics cases for future large circular colliders are still being explored .
there will be bread - and - butter high - precision higgs and other sm measurements to probe possible bsm scenarios for physics .
as for direct searches for new physics , the search for dark matter particles may provide the strongest case , and this is under continuing study .
the physics landscape will look completely different when / if future runs of the lhc find evidence for new physics beyond the sm such as susy .
the lhc adventure has only just begun , and we look forward to a big increase in energy with run  2 and eventually two orders of magnitude more integrated luminosity .
lovers of susy should not be disappointed that she has not yet appeared .
it took 48 years for the higgs boson to be discovered , but four - dimensional susy models were first written down just 41 years ago  @xcite .
we can be patient for a while longer .
the author is supported in part by the london centre for terauniverse studies ( lcts ) , using funding from the european research council via the advanced investigator grant 267352 , and in part by stfc ( uk ) via the research grants st / j002798/1 and st / l000326/1 .
g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] , phys .
b * 716 * ( 2012 ) 1 [ arxiv:1207.7214 [ hep - ex ] ] ; s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _
[ cms collaboration ] , phys .
b * 716 * ( 2012 ) 30 [ arxiv:1207.7235 [ hep - ex ] ] .
v.  khachatryan _ et al . _
[ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1410.6765 [ hep - ex ] .
a.  david _ et al .
_ [ lhc higgs cross section working group collaboration ] , arxiv:1209.0040 [ hep - ph ] . c.  anastasiou , c.  duhr , f.  dulat , f.  herzog and b.  mistlberger , arxiv:1503.06056 [ hep - ph ] . j.  charles , o.  deschamps , s.  descotes - genon , h.  lacker , a.  menzel , s.  monteil , v.  niess and j.  ocariz _ et al .
_ , arxiv:1501.05013 [ hep - ph ]
. v.  khachatryan _ et al . _
[ cms and lhcb collaborations ] , arxiv:1411.4413 [ hep - ex ] and references therein .
r.  aaij _ et al . _
[ lhcb collaboration ] , phys .
* 113 * ( 2014 ) 151601 [ arxiv:1406.6482 [ hep - ex ] ] .
r.  aaij _ et al . _
[ lhcb collaboration ] , phys .
* 111 * ( 2013 ) 19 , 191801 [ arxiv:1308.1707 [ hep - ex ] ] . v.  khachatryan _ et al . _
[ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1502.07400 [ hep - ex ] .
v.  m.  abazov _ et al . _
[ d0 collaboration ] , phys .
* 105 * ( 2010 ) 081801 [ arxiv:1007.0395 [ hep - ex ] ]
. b.  kronenbitter _ et al . _ [ belle collaboration ] , arxiv:1503.05613 [ hep - ex ] .
t.  aaltonen _ et al . _
[ cdf collaboration ] , phys .
d * 87 * ( 2013 ) 9 , 092002 [ arxiv:1211.1003 [ hep - ex ] ] .
s.  j.  brodsky and x.  g.  wu , phys .
d * 85 * ( 2012 ) 114040 [ arxiv:1205.1232 [ hep - ph ] ] ; s.  q.  wang , x.  g.  wu , z.  g.  si and s.  j.  brodsky , phys .
d * 90 * ( 2014 ) 11 , 114034 [ arxiv:1410.1607 [ hep - ph ] ] .
g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] , phys .
d * 90 * ( 2014 ) 052004 [ arxiv:1406.3827 [ hep - ex ] ] . v.  khachatryan _ et al .
_ [ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1412.8662 [ hep - ex ] .
g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas and cms collaborations ] , arxiv:1503.07589 [ hep - ex ] .
j.  r.  ellis , g.  ridolfi and f.  zwirner , phys .
b * 257 * ( 1991 ) 83 ; h.  e.  haber and r.  hempfling , phys .
* 66 * ( 1991 ) 1815 ; y.  okada , m.  yamaguchi and t.  yanagida , prog .
* 85 * ( 1991 ) 1 .
d.  buttazzo , g.  degrassi , p.  p.  giardino , g.  f.  giudice , f.  sala , a.  salvio and a.  strumia , jhep * 1312 * ( 2013 ) 089 [ arxiv:1307.3536 ] .
g.  aad _ et al . _
[ atlas collaboration ] , phys .
b * 726 * ( 2013 ) 120 [ arxiv:1307.1432 [ hep - ex ] ] ; v.  khachatryan _ et al .
_ [ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1411.3441 [ hep - ex ] .
t.  aaltonen _ et al . _
[ cdf and d0 collaborations ] , arxiv:1502.00967 [ hep - ex ] . j.  ellis , v.  sanz and t.  you , phys .
b * 726 * ( 2013 ) 244 [ arxiv:1211.3068 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  ellis , d.  s.  hwang , v.  sanz and t.  you , jhep * 1211 * ( 2012 ) 134 [ arxiv:1208.6002 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  ellis , r.  fok , d.  s.  hwang , v.  sanz and t.  you , eur .
j.  c * 73 * ( 2013 ) 2488 [ arxiv:1210.5229 [ hep - ph ] ] , and references therein .
atlas collaboration , https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/ + view / atlaspublic / higgspublicresults .
j.  ellis and t.  you , jhep * 1306 * ( 2013 ) 103 [ arxiv:1303.3879 [ hep - ph ] ] .
references to the original literature can be found here .
g.  blankenburg , j.  ellis and g.  isidori , phys .
b * 712 * ( 2012 ) 386 [ arxiv:1202.5704 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  askew , p.  jaiswal , t.  okui , h.  b.  prosper and n.  sato , arxiv:1501.03156 [ hep - ph ] .
j.  ellis , d.  s.  hwang , k.  sakurai and m.  takeuchi , jhep * 1404 * ( 2014 ) 004 [ arxiv:1312.5736 [ hep - ph ] ]
. j.  ellis , v.  sanz and t.  you , arxiv:1410.7703 [ hep - ph ] .
references to the original literature can be found here .
j.  ellis , v.  sanz and t.  you , jhep * 1407 * ( 2014 ) 036 [ arxiv:1404.3667 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  bond _ et al . _ , http://www.imdb.com / title / tt0143145/.        s.  moch , s.  weinzierl , s.  alekhin , j.  blumlein , l.  de la cruz , s.  dittmaier , m.  dowling and j.  erler _ et al .
_ , arxiv:1405.4781 [ hep - ph ] .
a.  r.  ade _ et al .
_ [ bicep2 and planck collaborations ] , phys .  rev .
* 114 * ( 2015 ) 10 , 101301 [ arxiv:1502.00612 [ astro-ph.co ] ] ; p.  a.  r.  ade _ et al . _
[ planck collaboration ] , arxiv:1502.02114 [ astro-ph.co ] .
m.  fairbairn and r.  hogan , phys .
* 112 * ( 2014 ) 201801 [ arxiv:1403.6786 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  hook , j.  kearney , b.  shakya and k.  m.  zurek , arxiv:1404.5953 [ hep - ph ] ; j.  kearney , h.  yoo and k.  m.  zurek , arxiv:1503.05193 [ hep - th ] . j.  r.  ellis and d.  ross , phys .  lett .
b * 506 * ( 2001 ) 331 [ hep - ph/0012067 ] .
t.  hahn , s.  heinemeyer , w.  hollik , h.  rzehak and g.  weiglein , phys .
* 112 * ( 2014 ) 14 , 141801 [ arxiv:1312.4937 [ hep - ph ] ] . j.  r.  ellis , s.  heinemeyer , k.  a.  olive and g.  weiglein , phys .
b * 515 * ( 2001 ) 348 [ hep - ph/0105061 ] .
o.  buchmueller , r.  cavanaugh , a.  de roeck , m.  j.  dolan , j.  r.  ellis , h.  flacher , s.  heinemeyer and g.  isidori _ et al .
_ , eur .
j.  c * 74 * ( 2014 ) 6 , 2922 [ arxiv:1312.5250 [ hep - ph ] ] .
o.  buchmueller , r.  cavanaugh , m.  citron , a.  de roeck , m.  j.  dolan , j.  r.  ellis , h.  flaecher and s.  heinemeyer _ et al .
_ , arxiv:1408.4060 [ hep - ph ] . k.  j.  de vries , e.  a.  bagnaschi , o.  buchmueller , r.  cavanaugh , m.  citron , a.  de roeck , m.  j.  dolan and j.  r.  ellis _ et al .
_ , arxiv:1504.03260 [ hep - ph ] .
fnal g-2 collaboration , http://muon-g-2.fnal.gov ; h.  iinuma ( for the j - parc new g-2/edm experiment collaboration ) , + http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/295/1/012032/ pdf/1742 - 6596_295_1_012032.pdf .
j.  r.  ellis , j.  s.  hagelin , d.  v.  nanopoulos , k.  a.  olive and m.  srednicki , nucl .
b * 238 * ( 1984 ) 453 ; h.  goldberg , phys .
* 50 * ( 1983 ) 1419 [ erratum - ibid .
* 103 * ( 2009 ) 099905 ] .
p.  cushman , c.  galbiati , d.  n.  mckinsey , h.  robertson , t.  m.  p.  tait , d.  bauer , a.  borgland and b.  cabrera _ et al .
_ , arxiv:1310.8327 [ hep - ex ] .
o.  buchmueller , m.  j.  dolan , s.  a.  malik and c.  mccabe , jhep * 1501 * ( 2015 ) 037 [ arxiv:1407.8257 [ hep - ph ] ] ; s.  malik , c.  mccabe , h.  araujo , a.  belyaev , c.  boehm , j.  brooke , o.  buchmueller and g.  davies _ et al .
_ , arxiv:1409.4075 [ hep - ex ] . .
m.  bicer _ et al . _
[ tlep design study working group collaboration ] , jhep * 1401 * ( 2014 ) 164 [ arxiv:1308.6176 [ hep - ex ] ] .
lhc higgs cross - section working group , as reported in m.  klute , + http://indico.cern.ch/event/300048/session/13/ contribution/60/material / slides/0.pdf .
j.  ellis , k.  a.  olive and j.  zheng , eur .
j.  c * 74 * ( 2014 ) 2947 [ arxiv:1404.5571 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  ellis , f.  luo and k.  a.  olive , arxiv:1503.07142 [ hep - ph ] .
j.  wess and b.  zumino , phys .
b * 49 * ( 1974 ) 52 .